Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Llanelly District Traction Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of local authorities which have prepared and presented schemes, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, for the approval of the Unemployment Grants Committee; the number of these schemes that have been approved; the number of authorities which have made preliminary inquiry regarding schemes they have under consideration; and has she any statistics that will show the number of men who have been provided with work under these schemes and the number of men transferred from distressed areas?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Since the 1st June, 1929, 934 local authorities have submitted formal applications to the Unemployment Grants Committee for grant from Exchequer Funds in aid of 2,933 schemes of work to relieve unemployment. Of the schemes so submitted 1,947 have been approved for grant. Statistics are not available with regard to preliminary inquiries. On 30th May, 1930, the total number of men employed directly on the schemes approved was 34,983 including 4,613 men from depressed areas.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether every assistance is given to the transference schemes by the local authorities?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is a difference of opinion.

BENEFIT CONDITION (INSURABLE OCCUPATION).

Mr. McSHANE: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is prepared to institute an inquiry into the present operation of the not normally in insurable occupation condition of the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am keeping a careful watch on the position, but as the new Act has been in force for less than three months a special inquiry into its working would be premature.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a considerable volume of opinion not merely on these benches, but elsewhere, that chairmen of courts of referees are flouting the expressed wish of this House in relation to not genuinely seeking work?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is a very common thing to find papers which were last year marked "not genuinely seeking work" are now marked "not normally in an insurable occupation," and does she not think flat that matter calls for inquiry?

STATISTICS.

Mr. TINKER: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is in a position to state what are the figures at the end of the first quarter for 1930, or the last available figures for 1930, of the males and females, separately stated, who are on the unemployed register at the Employment Exchanges, and the figures for the corresponding date in 1929; and will she state the percentages compared with the employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 30th June, 1930, there were 1,403,374 males and 487,201 females on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as compared with 917,390 males and 224,992 females at 1st July, 1929. At 23rd June, 1930, the percentage rates of unemployment among insured males and females in Great Britain were 15.8 per cent. and 15.1 per cent., respectively, as compared with 10.7 per cent. and 6.5 per cent. at 24th June, 1929.

Mr. CLARKE: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of females at present registered at the Employment
Exchanges in the United Kingdom and the number registered in the year 1913; and what percentage of the working population these represent in each case?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 30th June, 1930, there were 487,201 females on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, representing 15.1 per cent. of the number of females insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts at July, 1929. Comparable figures in respect of 1913 are not available.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of the number were married women?

Miss BONDFIELD: No.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not possible for the Minister to give figures showing the changes that have taken place since 1914 which have increased or decreased the number of women?

Miss BONDFIELD: The reply to a previous question gives that information very clearly.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

Mr. TINKER: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that persons entering unemployment insurance must produce a birth certificate; that a certificate of the registry of birth is insufficient and that they must produce another certified copy of birth, for which the applicant pays sixpence; and will she give consideration to this matter and see that the cost of the certificate does not fall upon the person entering insurance?

Miss BONDFIELD: As stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to a question yesterday, inquiry is being made into this matter. I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims disallowed at the Birkenhead Employment Exchange on the ground that applicants were not normally in insurable employment in the following periods: 1st January to 1st June, 1927, 1st January to 1st June, 1928, 1st January to 1st June, 1929, and 1st January to 1st June, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SIMMONS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants refused benefit, on the ground of not normally in insurable employment, at the Lench Street and Beacon Hill Exchanges in Birmingham during the first three weeks in June, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: Figures are available only in respect of cases dealt with by particular courts of referees. From 13th May to 9th June, 1930 (the latest period for which figures are available), the number of claims for benefit disallowed on the ground "not normally in insurable employment and will not seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment" were 455 by the Birmingham Court, which includes Lench Street and Coleshill, and 153 by the Aston Court, which includes Beacon Hill and Sutton Coldfield.

Mr. SIMMONS: Does the Minister not think that this lends colour to the suggestion that "not genuinely seeking work" has now been superseded by the new term?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, I really cannot accept that view.

Mr. HANNON: Is not the administration at the Lench Street and Beacon Hill Exchanges in Birmingham very efficient indeed, and is not every care taken to see that the rules are observed?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Lady said that she was not aware that it has worked out in this way—well, that is what the men who are unemployed think.

Mr. SIMMONS: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases heard by the Birmingham Court of Referees for the first three weeks in June, 1930; and the percentage of rejections during that period?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the four weeks 13th May to 9th June, 1930, the latest period for which figures are available, 960 cases were considered by the Birmingham Court of Referees, of which 762 or 79.4 per cent. were disallowed. It
should be noted that, apart from trade dispute cases, Courts of Referees deal only with claims which are not allowed in the first instance.

Mr. SORENSEN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants in England and in Leyton, respectively, who have been considered not normally in insurable occupations?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the period 13th March to 9th June, 1930, the number of claims to benefit disallowed by Courts of Referees on the ground "not normally insurable and will not seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment" were 50,300 in England and 104 in the area of the Leyton and Walthamstow Court of Referees.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that that indicates that there still is a good deal of administrative persecution taking place?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir, I do not.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Lady say when it stopped?

Mr. BECKETT: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for benefit that were refused at the Camberwell Employment Exchange in June, 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the four weeks ended 10th June, 1929, the total number of claims to benefit made at the Camberwell Employment Exchange which were disallowed by insurance officers or recommended for disallowance by the Court of Referees on 78 day review was 343. During the four weeks ended 9th June, 1930, the number of claims disallowed by the Camberwell Court of Referees was 144; there were no disallowances by insurance officers.

Mr. BECKETT: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons refused benefit in June, 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the four weeks ended 10th June, 1929, the total number of claims to benefit disallowed by insurance officers or recommended for disallowance by Courts of Referees on 78 day review in Great Britain was 50,290. During the four weeks ended 9th June, 1930, the number of claims disallowed by
Courts of Referees was 40,311; in addition 4,076 claims were disallowed by insurance officers in trade dispute cases.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, ASTON AND SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD.

Mr. SIMMONS: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will cause inquiry to be made as to the reason why a large crowd of women were kept waiting outside in the rain at the Beacon Hill Employment Exchange, Aston, on Monday, 23rd June, and arrange that the large vacant room on the premises shall be used as a shelter on future occasions?

Miss BONDFIELD: There was a sudden rainstorm lasting for about half an hour on the morning of the 23rd June. During its continuance the women already in the Exchange did not leave and so make room for those outside. A number of the latter were therefore caught in the rain, except so far as they could be accommodated in the men's waiting room, which I understand is the vacant room referred to by my hon. Friend. I should add that I am informed that the congestion in the women's department was mainly due to large numbers arriving in advance of their scheduled times and that the men's department did not meet with the same difficulty.

Mr. STRACHEY: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these premises are of a very temporary nature, and will she call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the desirability of providing a permanent building on this site for the purpose of an Unemployment Exchange?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having these matters continually under review.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether this kind of question could not be arranged between the right hon. Lady and her friends without wasting Parliamentary time?

Mr. SIMMONS: On a point of Order. The suggestion has been made by the hon. Member that the question was arranged. I deny any such suggestion, and the hon. Member should withdraw it.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour when the proposed new Employment Exchange at Sutton-in-
Ashfield, Notts, is to be commenced; and if she is aware of the unsatisfactory character and situation of the present exchange, with queues standing in the main street of the town and dispersing near a very congested omnibus stopping place?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the unsatisfactory character and situation of the present Employment Exchange premises at Sutton-in-Ashfield. A plan of a new exchange has been approved, and the Office of Works will make arrangements for the building to be erected as soon as the necessary preliminary work has been completed.

EXCHANGE MANAGERS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many branch managers of Employment Exchanges provide their own premises; to what uses are such premises also put; and whether there are any restrictions on the use of such premises for other purposes?

Miss BONDFIELD: 724 branch managers provide their own premises, which are subject to the approval of the Ministry. Such premises may be used for other purposes also, provided that no activity is carried on which conflicts with the work or interests of the Ministry.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the terms of engagement of part-time branch managers of Employment Exchanges?

Miss BONDFIELD: This information includes a great amount of detail which can hardly be given within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. I am sending the hon. Member a statement and relevant documents.

BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. LONGDEN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the number and kind of relief schemes approved by the Unemployed Grants Committee in respect of Birmingham for each of the last three years, with the estimated cost of and number of persons employed on each scheme?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

No schemes of work for the relief of unemployment were submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee from Birmingham during the two years ended the 30th June, 1928 and 1929, respectively, although extensions of schemes previously sanctioned were approved to the amount of £29,217. In the year ended 30th June, 1930, schemes were approved of an estimated total cost of £973,495. It is estimated that these schemes will find employment equivalent to 33,683 man-months.

The following table gives the particulars of each scheme:


Nature of Scheme.
Value of Scheme.
Estimated man-months of employment.



£



Sewers
9,710
324


Sewers
12,400
420


Sewers
630
25


Sewers
46,480
1,560


Sewers
15,480
517


Sewers
107,245
3,633


Sewers
63,690
2,142


Sewers
1,445
48


Sewers
730
27


Parks
56,400
2,880


Roads
21,680
792


Roads
11,755
360


Roads
39,605
1,224


Roads
18,958
720


Roads
17,588
600


Roads
16,000
675


Roads
5,304
186


Roads
14,345
110


Baths
75,000
4,000


River Improvements.
439,050
13,440



973,495
33,683

GLASGOW.

Major ELLIOT: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state the figures, by categories, of those registered as unemployed at the Finnieston Employment Exchange, Glasgow, and the central Employment Exchange, Glasgow, for the most recent date available; and what are the corresponding figures for the corresponding date in 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a Statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Persons on the Registers of Certain Employment Exchanges in Glasgow.


Employment Exchange.
30th June, 1930.
1st July, 1929.


Totally Unemployed (including casuals).
Temporarily stopped.
Total.
Totally Unemployed (including casuals).
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Finnieston—








Men
…
…
2,817
285
3,102
1,884
115
1,999


Boys
…
…
112
—
112
53
—
53


Women
…
508
18
526
216
29
245


Girls
…
…
65
5
70
52
—
52


Total
…
3,502
308
3,810
2,205
144
2,349


Glasgow Central—








Men
…
…
5,635
154
5,789
4,066
43
4,109


Boys
…
…
166
—
166
160
—
160


Women
…
1,466
113
1,579
681
54
735


Girls
…
…
151
3
154
187
2
189


Total
…
7,418
370
7,688
5,094
99
5,193

JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES AND CLASSES.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour by what means junior instruction centres and junior instruction classes are endeavouring to help the young people who attend them to adapt themselves to Changes of occupation; and whether any figures can be given showing the changes of occupation these centres and classes have been able to bring about?

Miss BONDFIELD: Details of the curricula at junior instruction centres and classes are within the discretion of the local education authorities concerned and differ widely, but the general principles follow those laid down in Appendix I of the First Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment (England and Wales). The instruction given is not aimed at preparing juveniles to enter particular occupations. Since February, 1928, however, over 5,000 boys have been transferred from the depressed mining areas to employment in other parts of the country in circumstances which have ordinarily involved a change of occupation. The great majority of these had been in attendance at junior instruction centres prior to their transfer.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can the right hon. Lady say if instructions are given
to those in charge of junior instruction centres and classes that they should press upon the young people the desirability of being adaptable to enter new occupations which she herself has said is so desirable?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope it is not a question of training the young people of my class as servants for duchesses.

MOTHERWELL TRAINING CENTRE (EMPLOYERS' STIPULATIONS).

Mr. BARR: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that there are employers of labour who on making application for young men to be supplied as workers from the Motherwell training centre stipulate that they shall be of a certain religious persuasion; and whether, seeing that the training centre is a national institution, she will instruct the agents of the Ministry, in making selections for these appointments, not to have regard to such considerations but only to the question of merit and practical suitability for the vacant positions?

Miss BONDFIELD: Stipulations of this kind are sometimes made by employers and obviously make difficulties for the placing agency, the primary aim of which is to submit the applicants who are best fitted industrially. Nothing would be gained, however, by disregard-
ing the stipulations, since the employer will not engage persons whom he regards as unsuitable, and the result would only be to cause friction and unpleasantness for the applicants. The matter is, in my opinion, one in which any attempt at official control would do much more harm than good.

Mr. BARR: Does not the Minister of Labour consider that this is a very invidious distinction and will she not issue regulations which will put this matter on a more equal basis so that employers shall not be able to insist on applicants being of a certain religious persuasion?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think it is highly desirable that these matters should be kept entirely apart from the placing agencies, but if employers stipulate that the applicant must be a Protestant or a Catholic, it certainly should be taken into account.

Miss LEE: Does not this mean that if this line is taken on religious questions employers may start taking the same line on political questions?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that that is not unknown in the labour world.

RELIEF WORK.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the different schemes for the relief of unemployment, she can state the approximate number of men who have been engaged to do work similar to that on which they are normally employed; and how many have been engaged on work dissimilar to that to which they are accustomed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that statistics giving this information are not available.

SINGER SEWING MACHINE WORKS (CLOSING).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour why her Department was not informed of the dates during which the Singer Sewing Machine works at Clydebank were to be closed down, seeing that these dates have been posted in the works for some time; what machinery exists for keeping his Department informed of the temporary closing of works which involves loss of employ-
ment to workers; and what steps are being taken to decide the question whether the employés of the Singer Sewing Machine works are eligible for unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: On making further inquiries, I find that the local officers of the Department have been aware of the dates fixed for closing. Workers at the establishment referred to are resident over a wide area in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, and arrangements have been made at all the local offices of the Department likely to be affected to deal as expeditiously as possible with the claims for benefit, which will no doubt be made in due course by the workers. Decisions will be given as to the amount of benefit payable in each case when the claims are made.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Would it not be much more to the point if the right hon. Lady took steps to keep these works open?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is this to apply to other towns, like Dundee, as well as to Glasgow where the same position arises?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes. Wherever we know that large works are liable to be closed down, we take special steps to meet the situation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Are special steps being taken in Nottingham in view of the lapsing of the Safeguarding Duties?

POLITICAL PARTIES (CONFERENCES).

Mr. BECKETT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings, if any, have taken place between representatives of the Government and any section of the Opposition on the unemployment question; and whether any consultative machinery is to be set up?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I cannot say how many, as they have been both formal and informal. No special consultative machinery has been set up.

Mr. TOOLE: Is it not important that this matter should be dealt with as early as possible, in order to give the Council of State—after yesterday—an opportunity of helping us?

Mr. BECKETT: Is it intended that these proposals, if any proposals are made, shall be published?

Mr. CULVERWELL: Will the Prime Minister say whether, after the events of yesterday, any further meetings will take place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I hope so—between the three parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS (CATERING TRADE).

Mr. McSHANE: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the possibility of a trade board for the catering trade?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have examined the information obtained as a result of the investigation—

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I am sorry, but I cannot hear what the right hon. Lady is saying.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have examined the information obtained as a result of the investigation which has been made and I am satisfied that circumstances exist which justify action under the Trade Boards Acts. The report of the investigation is now in the hands of the printer, and I hope that it will be published at the end of this month. In the meantime I am considering the form and scope of the action which it is expedient to take.

Mr. McSHANE: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that information, I should like to ask if she can give the date when a statement is likely to be made?

Miss BONDFIELD: No.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Is the right hon. Lady including hotels in the catering trade?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is a question of scope.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions that have taken place during the three months ended to
the last convenient date with reference to incidents that have occurred in Hyde Park; and how many of these prosecutions have been successful?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): During the three months ended 31st May, 1930, there were 468 prosecutions relating to incidents in Hyde Park. In 398 cases there were convictions; in six the charge was proved but dismissed; in 11 the charge was withdrawn or dismissed; in five there were no appearances; and 48 are not yet heard. The cases were of every kind, from manslaughter to begging.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cases in which convictions were obtained were supported by other than police evidence?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

HOME OFFICE (INSPECTORS, WALES).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 27.
asked the Home Secretary how many inspectors and sub-inspectors of factories there are in Wales and Monmouthshire, and how many of them have a knowledge of the Welsh language?

Mr. CLYNES: There are nine inspectors stationed in Wales and Monmouthshire, of whom five have a knowledge of the Welsh language.

ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. THURTLE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to say whether he intends to take proceedings against the Dutchman named Hauser, who was guilty of inducing two civil servants to practise corruption?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 14th April, 1930, to which I cannot add anything.

Mr. THURTLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about six months since I started asking questions on this point? How long have I to wait for a definite decision on this matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I appreciate the fact that there has been delay in this and other matters, and I can only repeat my
previous offer to my hon. Friend, and that is, personally, to give him such information as I have supplementing my replies.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (NYSTAGMUS).

Mr. TINKER: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of nystagmus cases that have been certified for light work on the surface; if he is aware that employers refuse to find them suitable work, but reduce compensation to small amounts and, in some cases, take it away altogether; and will he consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to prevent compensation being reduced until suitable work is offered?

Mr. CLYNES: I am well aware of the hardship arising not only in nystagmus cases but also in the case of many other partially disabled workmen, who under present conditions are unable to obtain any suitable employment. An attempt to provide a solution has been made this Session in a Bill which is now before the House. I am afraid that all I can do at present is to assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the importance and urgency of the question, and will do anything that is possible to secure a satisfactory settlement.

Mr. TINKER: May I take it from his answer that we may see a Workmen's Compensation Bill introduced in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has consulted with the Opposition, and that the employers have definitely refused to allow that Bill to become law?

Mr. CLYNES: I have not heard of that refusal. It is much too early to make an announcement regarding the business of the next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA STAFFS (WEEKLY HOLIDAY).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the recent Home Office Order in regard to the attendance of staffs at cinemas in
order to minimise danger of fire is resulting in members of cinema staffs losing their half-day holiday; and whether he will take steps to prevent this result?

Mr. CLYNES: I should be sorry to hear that the new Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers has had this effect, but I have no power to take any action. The object of the Regulation is to ensure the provision of an adequate staff of attendants for purposes of safety, and my powers under the Statute are limited to dealing with questions of safety. The responsibility for regulating the hours of the staff so employed rests with the licensees of the cinematograph theatres.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

RUSSIANS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Home Secretary how many nationals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have received permits to enter this country in the present year, and for what purposes?

Mr. CLYNES: During this year 248 visas have been authorised for Soviet citizens desirous of travelling to the United Kingdom. The majority were coming on temporary visits in connection with trade, the remainder were coming to join the staffs of Soviet organisations in this country, or in a few instances for scientific or technical work or for purely private reasons.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those who have not come here to join the staff are still in the country?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not without further notice give a more minute classification of these groups.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many thousands of people have availed themselves of the facilities for a tour in Russia which are advertised in Cockspur Street and West London?

34. Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: asked the Home Secretary when M. Moses Roisenman, chief of the foreign section of the Soviet secret police, landed in this country; and whether he is enjoying diplomatic immunity while he resides
here or whether he is subject to the ordinary restrictions applying to aliens entering Great Britain on passport?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware that M. Moses Roisenman is in this country.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the importance of the position which this gentleman holds, whether he will make inquiries through his Department; and, if he undertakes to do so, I will take care to put down a question next week?

Mr. CLYNES: We have no information or knowledge whatever of the presence of this Russian subject. If my hon. and gallant Friend has information, I will be glad to hear it.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has joined the Empire Crusade?

NATURALISATION.

Captain MACDONALD: 32.
asked the Home Secretary what is the nature of the simplified procedure which he proposes to initiate respecting the naturalisation of aliens; and from what date such changes will be effective?

Mr. CLYNES: The principal point is that, instead of at least eight documents being necessary, all the information required in the first instance can be given on one form. I think that many applicants should be able to complete this for themselves. The alien will be required to make a statutory declaration in support of his application, and to obtain the signatures of four British sponsors: there are spaces on the form for both these purposes. The requirement of public advertisement of an application in the Press will be maintained, and every application will, as hitherto, be subjected to searching inquiry before a decision is reached. I hope that the new arrangements will enable a larger number of applications to be brought to a decision more speedily than has been possible in recent years. The forms and instructions for applicants are in the Press, and will, I believe, be on sale to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (POLICE WARNING).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Metropolitan police intend, after the passage of the Road Traffic Bill, to continue the system of first warnings to motorists for all minor offences without immediately proceeding to prosecution.

Mr. CLYNES: Under the present system, the warning, as an alternative to prosecution for minor offences, is not given automatically, but each case is considered on its merits. There is no intention at present to alter the system.

BOURNEMOUTH-SOUTHAMPTON ROAD (BRIDGE, IFORD).

Mr. MILLS: 86.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any application from the Hampshire county council towards the construction of a by-pass road from the New Forest into Bournemouth and district, in view of the conditions attending pedestrian and vehicular traffic over Iford bridge and its approaches; and, if so, what action he is taking in the matter.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I presume my hon. Friend refers to a new bridge and approaches at Iford which it is proposed to construct over the River Stour on the Bournemouth-Southampton Road, with the aid of a grant from the Road Fund. Certain of the plans have been approved by my department and the contract details are in course of preparation by the Southampton County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHING (BRITISH EMPIRE).

Mr. HANNON: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution unanimously adopted at the 12th Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, recently held at the Guildhall, recommending an interchange of text-books dealing with the Empire between the various education departments within the Empire; if his department has promoted any scheme for the extension of teaching on subjects relating to the Empire in schools in England and Wales; and if he can indicate the extent
to which the Empire text-book, The British Empire since 1783, has been adopted for use by education authorities in this country?

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: On a point of Order. Would not this Question be better dealt with by correspondence, instead of wasting the time of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me to decide. It is a matter for the hon. Member who puts down the Question.

Mr. HANNON: On that point of Order. May I respectfully submit that this is a question of wide public importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said, these are matters to be decided by the hon. Member who puts down the Question.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): My attention has been called to the resolution mentioned. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Board's handbook of "Suggestions for Teachers," and their recently published pamphlet on the "Teaching of Empire Geography," of which I am sending him a copy. I have no information on the last part of the question.

Mr. HANNON: While expressing my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a copy of the handbook—which I already possess—may I ask him whether he, as President of the Board of Education, is giving serious attention to the importance of spreading information about the British Empire in the elementary schools of this country?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Information about The Empire is already an important part of education.

Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a textbook on Empire Free Trade has been circulated down in Norfolk?

Mr. C. BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the desire expressed in this question to corrupt the minds of the children, by biased historical teaching, is to be deprecated?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, SHIREHAMPTON, BRISTOL.

Mr. ALPASS: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sanctioned the scheme for the provision of a new council school at Shirehampton, Bristol?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Plans for the provision of a new junior school to serve the Shirehampton district were approved in January last, and further plans for a new senior school in May. I am fully alive to the urgency of the need for the provision of additional accommodation in this district, and I have recently communicated with the local education authority emphasising the need for expedition in dealing with the matter.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mr. SORENSEN: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many elementary school scholars were enabled to pass to secondary schools through scholarships in 1929?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: During the year ended the 31st July, 1929, 36,651 pupils from public elementary schools were admitted as free pupils to grant-earning secondary schools in England and Wales.

CIRCULAR 1404.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the executive committee of the London Municipal Society on 3rd July, 1930, protesting against the issue of Circular 1404 by the Board in September, 1929, and expressing the opinion that such action was unconstitutional and subversive of the authority of Parliament and the rights of local education authorities, inasmuch as it pressed local education authorities to make their plans and to embark upon expenditure in anticipation of the Education Bill, which has since been withdrawn; and does he propose to indemnify such local education authorities for any unnecessary expense they have been forced to incur?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, which seems to have been passed under a misapprehension. I am not aware that any local education authorities have been
forced to incur any unnecessary expense by reason of the issue of the circular, and the last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Dr. DAVIES: Supposing it comes to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that certain local education authorities have been compelled to incur expenditure in this respect, what will be their position?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that when a circular of this sort is issued, local authorities act upon it and that they do incur expense in that way; and if these circulars are not to be implemented, then what is the position of the local authorities in this matter?

WOMEN TEACHERS (MARRIAGE).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of local education authorities require women teachers to resign on marriage?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that I have no information showing how many local education authorities have regulations requiring women teachers to resign on marriage.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be worth while to have investigations made and to obtain the information asked for in this question?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I should not think so.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the business of the President of the Board of Education to know what is going on among local education authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not see any particular advantage in getting this particular statistic.

Mr. BEAUMONT: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade suggested the employment of married teachers as the way to fill up—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. MATHERS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to set up a committee to inquire into the question of Scottish local administration and national Government; and if he will indicate the nature of the committee and scope of the inquiry to be undertaken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the time to do this has not yet come.

EDUCATION REPORTS.

Mr. SCOTT: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will define the terms control examination, qualifying examination, and qualifying stage, which are used in annual reports of the Committee of Council on Education and reports of His Majesty's inspectors of schools, and explain the relation of the respective terms to primary classes, advanced division classes, and secondary schools?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The expression "qualifying examination" was originally applied to the examination which His Majesty's inspectors of schools conducted under former Codes in order to determine whether pupils were fitted for promotion from the senior division to the more advanced classes of a primary school or to a higher grade or secondary department. The official examination disappeared when the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1923, came into operation, but the expression is still commonly applied to any test which may be imposed to determine whether pupils who have completed the work of the senior division are suitable for promotion to advanced divisions or secondary courses. The term "control examination" has no definite official significance. Where, however, it is used it would normally be understood to mean a separate or additional test, e.g., for the purpose of distinguishing pupils whose educational attainments fit them to proceed to the full secondary course of five years leading to the leaving certificate. Pupils are said to be at the qualifying stage when they have completed or are about to complete the work proper to the senior division—a stage normally reached at or about the age of 12.

Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of misconception with regard to the subject matter of this question in Scotland among education authorities, and even among the headmasters of some schools; and will he give us the terms issued by the Department controlling the passing of pupils from the primary schools to the advanced schools?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am afraid that I could not do so without notice, but, if there be any misconception in the matter, I trust that this question and answer may assist in dispelling it.

Mr. SCOTT: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total circulation in 1929 of the annual report of the Committee of Council on Education and the general reports of His Majesty's chief inspectors of schools, respectively; how many of the former at 1s. each were purchased last year; how many of the latter at 1s. 6d. each were purchased; whether copies of either or both were sent gratis to each member of the education authorities for their consideration; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to instruct this to be done this year and in future years?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are 890 and 681, respectively; in the second 439; in the third 507. Copies of these publications were not sent gratis to members of education authorities, and, having regard to the cost involved, my right hon. Friend does not feel prepared to accept the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied at finding that so few copies of this important document have reached the parties responsible for education in Scotland? Will he consider sending gratis copies to those men and women who are giving their services to education without remuneration of any kind?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is really a matter for the Stationery Office in the first instance, but I will pass on the suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

STREET WIDENING SCHEME, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, in a property situated at Bedford
Lane, Glasgow, 14 tenants have been ordered to remove forthwith; that the tenants have not been able to secure other homes; and, seeing that this is a slum-clearance scheme, if he will take steps to see that the Glasgow Corporation provide houses for the displaced families?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The property to which the hon. Member refers has been acquired by the Corporation of Glasgow for the purpose of street widening, and not in connection with a slum-clearance scheme. The matter is solely within the jurisdiction of the corporation, but I have made inquiries as to the position, and I am informed that the proposed street widening works have not yet been begun, and that no notice requiring the tenants of the property to remove forthwith has been issued. The corporation inform me that they have no intention of displacing the tenants until alternative accommodation has been provided for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 47.
asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to restore the State grant to the National Insurance societies to the original sum?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the right hon. Member on 14th November, 13th February and 13th March last on the same subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman still describe this condition of affairs as "robbery"?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Sir K. WOOD: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any action concerning the recommendations in the recent report of the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind; and whether he has decided to bring before Parliament proposals for giving to blind people pensions at 40 years of age?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure what particular recommendations the right hon. Gentleman has in view. Most of the recommendations contained in this report do not call for any action on my part. As regards the last part of the
question, I would refer to the answer given on this subject on 10th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith).

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring forward proposals for increased pensions for the blind, as he promised the electors at the last Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 49.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state precisely what relaxation of the requirements of the London Building Acts the London County Council have recently offered, in connection with subsidised housing schemes, in respect of wall fillings and floor loads for the purpose of facilitating the submission of tenders for steel-frame buildings?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am informed that no recent application has been made to the London County Council for the relaxation of these requirements of the London Building Acts in connection with subsidised housing schemes. In 1926 the Council obtained tenders for the erection of two blocks of dwellings embodying relaxations to the extent of a reduction of floor load from 70 to 40 lbs. per square foot, and of wall thickness (below the upper 20 feet of wall) from 14 to 8½ inches. I may add that I understand that the tenders obtained compared unfavourably with tenders for ordinary brick construction and that steel framed buildings were not in fact erected.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not this permission for a very large reduction of the floor load show that the London County Council building regulations are entirely out of date?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No. I think the moral is that it does not prove that this is cheaper than brick construction.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give wider publicity to these relaxations so that other authorities may take advantage of it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. Member will find that they have been well advertised.

DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).

Mr. T. LEWIS: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that excessive rents are being charged for decontrolled houses and to sub-tenants of furnished and unfurnished rooms; and if he will state what action he proposes taking to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. GREENWOOD: These matters will receive consideration in connection with any legislation amending the Rent Restriction Acts; but as I have intimated in reply to recent questions, it will not be practicable to introduce further legislation for this purpose in the near future.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the Minister of Health be able to put this first on the list for next Session?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If I follow what the late Government did, I shall not put it on the list at all.

PAVING CHARGES.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether the investigation which he is conducting into the paving charges on owner-occupiers of new houses has reached a stage at which definite results can be announced; and, if not, when does he expect to be in a position to make such an announcement?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Investigations are still proceeding, but, owing to the intricacies of the subject and the pressure of other business, I am sorry that I cannot promise an early announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

CREAM (PRESERVATIVES).

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he has now considered the representations made to him by those engaged in the production and distribution of cream as to the effect of the Order prohibiting the use of preservatives in cream upon the industry; and if he is now prepared to suspend or modify the Order?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have carefully considered these representations, but I am not prepared to suspend or modify the regulations.

Mr. RUSSELL: Is the Minister not prepared to lay before the House such evidence as he has as to the effect of this Order on the cream industry? Is it sufficient to warrant the destruction of an industry?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My information is that a large number of efficient firms have adapted themselves to the new regulations, and that it is quite possible to do so.

STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether the establishment of a State medical service comes within the terms of reference of the Cabinet committee at present engaged on a general survey of the existing insurance and pension legislation; and when a report is expected from this committee?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not in a position to bind the committee, but I should doubt whether they will see any necessity to extend the wide scope of their labours by considering the difficult question raised by my hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the question, it is not possible to make any statement at present.

Mr. LEWIS: What are the objections to it being included?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already said that because of the very wide scope of the present inquiry it would be inadvisable to extend it.

Mr. LEWIS: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the very great demand for a State medical service?

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health when the report of the departmental committee inquiring into the causes of maternal mortality will be published?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is hoped that an interim report from this committee will be published before the end of this month.

NORTHAMPTON WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. MALONE: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the result of the recent inquiries made by Mr. A. E. Marshall, one
of the Ministry of Health's engineering inspectors, on 25th June, concerning the Northampton waterworks scheme, and on 27th June concerning the new Northampton sewerage scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No waterworks scheme has been submitted by the Northampton Town Council. Mr. Marshall's visit was for the purpose of discussing certain proposals outlined by the council's waterworks engineer for supplying Northampton and other towns in the Midlands with water from Wales. The scheme of sewerage and sewage disposal which formed the subject of Mr. Marshall's inquiry on the 27th ultimo requires a good deal of further consideration, but no time will be lost in dealing with it.

REFUSE DISPOSAL, LONDON.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 68.
asked the Minister of whether he proposes to take action on the lines recommended by the Committee on the Public Cleansing of London, and especially to press Metropolitan sanitary authorities to discontinue the insanitary dumping of refuse outside their areas?

Captain P. MACDONALD: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take early action in respect of the recommendations of the committee which considered the Dawes Report on public cleansing in London, in view of the menace to health from refuse dumps?

Mr. GREENWOOD: All I can say at the moment is that I have the report under immediate consideration.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if the Government intend to take any practical steps and, if so, what to safeguard the playing fields of the poorer classes which are threatened with extinction owing to high assessments and increased rates?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 5th June, and would add that the Central Valuation Committee have the matter under consideration.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the Minister not aware that in view of the increased taxation many of these playing grounds, especially in London, are threatened with
extinction, and that the position is very serious indeed so far as the poorer children in London are concerned?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Only to-day I have been discussing the matter with the representatives of the National Playing Fields Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of the Court of Session in a stated case under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts with reference to the position in insurance of voluntary contributors under the health and pensions insurance schemes; whether, as a result of that decision, a widow's pension which had been refused by the Department has now been granted by the referees; and whether he will expedite the revision so that those widows who are entitled to pensions may receive their pensions without delay?

Mr. GREENWOOD: A decision on this question was given by the High Court on 15th December, 1927, in the case of Wadsworth v. Minister of Health and the position as regards claims in England and Wales is determined by that decision. Any inquiry regarding the effect of the recent decision of the Court of Session on Scottish cases should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Major WOOD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the position under which the same law is to be interpreted differently in Scotland and in England, and that widows are to be pensioned in Scotland while in England widows in the same position are to be refused pensions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is deplorable that there should have been two decisions, but it is quite clear that it would mean legislation, and I cannot promise that at the moment.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish courts say that they have heard a fuller argument than the English courts, and that the English courts would have come to a different decision if they had heard the arguments that the Scottish courts heard?

Mr. McSHANE: Could not the Minister count upon the general assent of the House in some Measure such as this?

Sir K. WOOD: 56.
asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking in the matter of the request which he has recently received from the national conference on widows and old age pensions that the Government shall fulfil their pledges to widows and old people by the extension of the present insurance scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have answered that this question is amongst those which are engaging the attention of the Cabinet Committee on the co-ordination of the social services.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: How much longer are we to wait for any action?

Mr. T. LEWIS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows' pensions which the Government actuary estimated would become payable as from the 1st July, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, and the actual number of such pensions which have been admitted to date?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It was estimated that about 210,000 widows would become entitled to pensions as from 1st July, 1930, under Section 1 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1930. Approximately 160,000 of these pensions have been awarded to date, over 40,000 applications, most of which are of recent date, are under investigation, and 3,000 to 4,000 applications a week are still being received from widows who claim to be entitled as from 1st July.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numbers of these widows are still expecting their pensions to be raised from 10s. to £1, as per this leaflet?

Sir K. WOOD: Is he also aware that there are a great many widows still waiting for pensions?

Mr. SORENSEN: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the number of successful and unsuccessful applicants in Leyton for pensions under the Pensions Act of 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that the information asked for is not available, as the claims are not arranged on a territorial basis.

Mr. W. W. HENDERSON: 63.
asked the Minister of Health the number of beneficiaries under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1925, and under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1929, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I assume that my hon. Friend washes to have the total number of awards made under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, since 4th January, 1926, when that Act first came into operation.

As regards the Act of 1929 he will appreciate that that Act does not come fully into operation until January next.

The following figures relate to pensions awarded to 26th June, 1930, in Great Britain:


—
Act of 1925.
Act of 1929.


Windows' Pensions
396,693
155,495*


Orphans' pensions
19,543
—


Old Age Pensions (65 to 70 years of age).
918,892 (To wives of men over 70 at 2.1.28.)
24,852


Old Age Pensions (over 70 years of age).
356,921
—


* In addition 15,686 widows who had ceased to be entitled to pensions under the 1925 Act had their pensions restored from 2nd January, 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASYLCM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (LANCASTER).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 54 and 55.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists amongst employ és of the Lancaster Mental Hospital with regard to his action in refusing to sanction certain gratuities to the widows of men who died whilst in the service of this hospital; and whether
he can state his reasons for differentiating between these cases and others in which gratuities were sanctioned, seeing that the gratuities which he has refused to sanction were recommended by the local authorities concerned, and that the widows concerned are in need of them;
(2) whether he can state on what grounds he has refused his sanction to the gratuities claimed, under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, by the widows of Henry Hodgson, John Borland and Richard Stephen Curwen, late employés of the Lancaster Mental Hospital?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, makes no provision for the payment of gratuities to these widows. Any such payments are extra-legal and require to be sanctioned under the special powers of the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act, 1887. In my view the use of this Act to sanction additional payments beyond the limits specifically imposed by Parliament in passing the Superannuation Act is justifiable only in very special circumstances, and in these three cases I was unable, after the most careful consideration, to come to the conclusion that such special circumstances obtained. I am not aware of the dissatisfaction referred to in the first question, and I would point out that the proper remedy, if the existing Act is unsatisfactory, is an amendment of the law. On this point I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 18th July, 1929.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his policy towards these people is much less generous than the policy of his predecessors?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, that is certainly not the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

OUTDOOR RELIEF, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. LONGDEN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he will supply the comparative figures showing the number of persons who were receiving outdoor relief in Birmingham on the same convenient date in June, 1929, and June, 1930, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in the city of Birmingham on Saturday, 28th June, 1930, excluding persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, was 11,658. I regret that corresponding figures for 1929 cannot be given, as in that year the figures relate to the Poor Law Union, the boundaries of which were not coterminous with those of the city.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.

Mr. BELLAMY: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether, as an indication of the progress made in breaking up the Poor Law, he will give the names of the local authorities who have made declarations under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929, and of the special Acts under which these declarations have been made?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will circulate a statement giving the particulars desired. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that the administrative schemes in which these declarations are contained were made by local authorities prior to the transfer of Poor Law functions, and declarations could therefore only be made by local authorities who were satisfied that as from the appointed day they would be in a position to carry out the whole of the services covered by the declaration under the special Act and without recourse to the Poor Law. The practical break up of the Poor Law after the appointed day is dependent upon administrative arrangements to be made by local authorities and can be effected by such arrangements without the actual making of a declaration. I am aware that this course of action is being adopted by many authorities and as an example of one of the methods adopted I may say that consent to the appropriation of 24 Poor Law Institutions belonging to 13 different authorities for the purposes of special Acts has already been given. The list of declarations in itself does not therefore give an accurate picture of the action taken and the results attained by local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will any report be given from time to time of the progress of this work, or shall we
have to wait for the annual report of the Ministry of Health?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that quite clearly this is a matter for an annual return, and it will appear in the Annual Report of the Department.

Following is the statement:

Declarations under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929.

Public Health Acts, 1875–1926.


Barnsley County Borough Council.
Leeds.



Leicester.


Birkenhead.
Lincoln.


Bournemouth.
Manchester.


Bradford.
Middlesbrough.


Brighton.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.


Bristol



Dewsbury.
Oldham.


Doncaster.
Oxford.


Eastbourne.
Reading.


Grimsby.
Rotherham.


Huddersfield.
Southampton.


Ipswich.
Stoke-on-Trent.


Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913–1929.


East Sussex County Council.
Ipswich.



Leicester.


Barnsley County Borough Council.
Lincoln.



Middlesbrough.


Birkenhead.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.


Bradford.



Brighton.
Sheffield.


Eastbourne.
South Shields.


Halifax.
West Bromwich.


Huddersfield.
York.


Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918.

Cheshire County Council.
Huddersfield.



Ipswich.


Hertford.
Leicester.


East Sussex.
Lincoln.


Barnsley County Borough Council.
Manchester.



Middlesbrough.


Barrow.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.


Bath.



Birkenhead.
Oldham.


Bournemouth.
Reading.


Bradford.
Rotherham.


Brighton.
Salford.


Bristol.
Southampton.


Derby County Borough.
South Shields.



Stoke-on-Trent.


Dewsbury.
Wakefield.


Eastbourne.
West Bromwich.


Gateshead.
West Hartlepool.


Halifax.

N.B.—It must be understood that declarations are made in respect of particular services as defined in the scheme of the local authority, and a declaration actually made under a special Act in a particular scheme may extend either to the whole or only to a specified portion of the services in respect of which such declaration may have been made. The precise scope of the declarations included in the above list varies therefore in a considerable degree but these variations do not lend themselves readily to reproduction in a tabular statement and can only be tested by reference to the particular scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL TRADING.

Mr. L. SMITH: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase of municipal trading, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation making it compulsory upon all local authorities to furnish to ratepayers such details of the methods employed and the business carried on and to give to them such information as may be demanded by shareholders in the case of transactions carried out by public companies undertaking the same kind of work?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount required to provide for de-rating under the English and Scottish Local Government Acts of 1929 during the current financial year; and the estimated amount which each of the principal industries will receive in relief of rates during that period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The part of the General Exchequer Contribution which represents losses on account of rates under Section 86 (3) (a) of the Local Government Act is estimated at £22,600,000 for England and Wales and the corresponding figure for Scotland is £3,200,000. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry) on the 1st April last. The figure of £34,000,000 given in that reply includes, in addition to the above figures, the increased grants to local authorities under the scheme.

Mr. MILLAR: Cannot the hon. Gentleman undertake to make some estimate of the amount which will be given to the various industries, in order to see whether this Measure can be justified?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think that I can make any further estimate than that to which the previous answer referred.

Mr. SKELTON: Is not the justification of the Act that nobody proposes to repeal it?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Have any of these industries shown any greater success or done better business in consequence of de-rating?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL ISSUES.

Mr. L. SMITH: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the first half of the present year capital issues by financial, land, investment, and trust companies, miscellaneous, commercial, and industrial companies, amounted to only £25,500,000 as against £107,250,000 in the first six months of 1929; and whether, in view of the effect of this reaction upon finance, trade, and employment, he will consider the desirability of instituting an inquiry into the causes?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Data of the kind referred to by the hon. Member are being kept under close observation. My right hon. Friend does not propose to institute a special inquiry, which would overlap with other investigations, particularly that which is being under-
taken by the Committee on Finance and Industry of which Lord Macmillan is chairman.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May not the cause be found in the lack of confidence engendered by the existence of a Socialist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Mr. DAY: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any cinematograph films being made at the present time in which Government property and material is being used; and will he give particulars?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to this question which I gave him on the 3rd July.

Mr. DAY: Are these films under the control of an officer of the Stationery Office, who has charge also of the arrangements of the terms for the use of Government property and material?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Why do we not have so many nice films of His Majesty's Government as we used to do a year ago?

Mr. DAY: May I ask for an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think that it arises out of the question, but, if the hon. Member desires, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY (LOANS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the aggregate number of oil paintings and water-colour drawings that are national property at Trafalgar Square and Mill-bank; how many in the aggregate are usually exhibited at any one time in the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery; and how many approximately are at any one given date exhibited on loan in other public galleries in London and the provinces?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In addition to a large number of drawings in
portfolios, the approximate number of framed oil paintings, water colours and other drawings that are national property is 1,850 at the National Gallery and 2,600 at the Tate Gallery respectively. Of these, 1,180 from the National Gallery and 28 from the Tate Gallery are at present on exhibition at the National Gallery and 1,412 are exhibited at the Tate Gallery. Ninety from the National Gallery and 270 from the Tate are on loan. In addition, 580 are available to the public in the reference section of the National Gallery. About 890 are at present stored at the Tate Gallery; but over 600 of them will be exhibited when the new wing is completed and many of the remainder are of slight interest.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the possibility of giving fuller facilities to the provinces to make use of this surplus stock of artistic treasure?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into that.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it be possible to draw up a list of pictures which have some local interest through subject or authorship; and, if they are not being exhibited in London, to offer them on loan to provincial public galleries where they have a local attraction or connection?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will have the matter looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Sir BASIL PETO: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with schemes for employment, he will consider the preparation of a new Ordnance Survey, in view of the fact that the present Ordnance Survey, made more than 20 years ago, is now out of date?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The original Survey, which was completed in 1888, has been revised normally every 20 years so far as the large scale maps are concerned, and every 15 years so far as the one-inch and smaller scale maps are concerned; but I am considering the possibility of reducing the interval between revisions.

Sir B. PETO: Is not a new map about due, and would it not be useful to put this work in hand?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Captain GUNSTON: When these maps are revised, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Department to show the new electric lines running across the country?

Dr. ADDISON: That suggestion will be noted.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting beyond this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY (IRISH WORKERS).

Mr. THURTLE: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any workers and, if so, how many, have been imported from Ireland to the eastern counties for the purpose of dealing with the sugar beet crop?

Dr. ADDISON: Although I understand that a certain number of Irish workers have been engaged for seasonal work on the sugar beet crop in the eastern counties, I have no particulars of the total numbers involved. As was explained in my predecessor's reply on the 29th April to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), special efforts have been made by my Department in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, the National Farmers' Union and the Beet Sugar Factories Committee to urge growers to recruit any additional workers required for sugar beet from local sources, and, as far as I can ascertain, growers generally have adopted that course.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the chief offenders are the factories, who could employ local labour in the winter when there is a good deal of local agricultural labour available, and will he look into it?

Dr. ADDISON: I have already done so, and I believe that all the factories are now coming to this arrangement.

Mr. HARRIS: Is this new policy an example of Empire Free Trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE, LONDON.

Mr. R. RUSSELL: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if some thousands of pathological specimens which are of great value on account of their rarity, have been destroyed at the Royal Veterinary College, London; and whether he proposes to make any inquiry into this loss to veterinary education and research?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware that the position is as stated in the first part of the question. According to my information, certain specimens at the college were destroyed as they were no longer in good condition. I understand that the Governors of the college have already considered this question, and I can scarcely intervene in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMSTEAD (STAFFORDSHIRE) COLLIERY ACCIDENT FUND.

Mr. McSHANE: 81.
asked the Secretary for Mines what assets remain in the Hamstead (Great Barr, Staffordshire) Colliery Accident Fund; how much of the fund has been disbursed; how many people are still in receipt of benefit; and through what agency this fund is administered?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): Particulars of this fund were included in the White Paper H/C 155/1925, and indicated that the balance in hand at 31st July, 1924, was £1,161 3s. 2d. There were then 10 persons receiving relief, and the trustees estimated that there would be no surplus after meeting all claims. I have no later official information, but from Press reports which I have seen the fund would appear to be exhausted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS CREDITS BALANCE.

Mr. MALONE: 87.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the balance now available for use by the Export Credits Department for the assistance of foreign trade?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The balance available at the end of June, 1930, for guaranteeing credits under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme was approximately £20,000,000.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Has the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) been notified that there is this unused balance of £20,000,000 under the Exports Credits Scheme?

Mr. GILLETT: I do not understand why the hon. Member for Northampton should be specially informed of that.

Mr. SAMUEL: Because Northampton traders have asked for a guarantee of Soviet credit in order to export 3,000,000 pairs of boots and shoes to Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 88.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that, in the case of persons in receipt of a need pension and who have applied for either an old age or widows' pension, in a number of cases the need pension is reduced before the actual granting of payment of such an old age or widows' pension; and if, seeing that this is contrary to the Statute, he will say what steps he proposes to take to have this practice stopped?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on the 7th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.
By way of supplement to that answer, I may say that if in any exceptional case it may be ascertained that the contributory pension claim had not been met by the due date, arrangements have been made to reinstate temporarily the full pension previously in issue from my Department.

Mr. MOSES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that procedure will be adopted in all cases?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what right is given to him by any Act of Parliament to reduce any pension?

Mr. ROBERTS: A need pension is governed by the income of the recipient.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But what right has the Minister to reduce any pension when the income of the recipient has not been increased?

Mr. ROBERTS: No reduction has been made unless the income has been increased.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Instances have been given where decreases have taken place. There was a case which I submitted to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. ROBERTS: I am looking into the case and will let my hon. Friend have the answer as soon as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL (DIVISION 424).

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: I rise on a point of Order. Mr. Speaker, to ask for your guidance In Division No. 424, which was taken yesterday, a Division which caused a certain amount of excitement, the Tellers reported the "Noes" as being 278, whereas according to the Official Division List published this morning only 277 Members are marked as having voted "No." On page 359 of Erskine May it says, in reference to mistakes having been made in the numbers of a Division:
If a mistake is subsequently discovered, it will be ordered to be corrected in the Journal.

Mr. MILLS: Let us take it again.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I wish to ask what steps should be taken to place on record in the Journal of this House that the correct majority yesterday was two and not three?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Tellers in the Lobby in which the mistake occurred come to the Table and agree that the number was incorrectly reported, I shall direct that the Journal shall be corrected by a statement of the correct number instead of the incorrect number.

Later—

Mr. THURTLE: Reverting to the earlier point regarding the Division figures, may we understand quite clearly that the figures announced from the Chair as the result of a Division are always the definite figures, and cannot be altered?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Ruling that I gave, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member who raised the point, was quite definite.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not Erskine May state that if there is any dispute as to the figures of a Division, the point must be raised immediately after the Division has been taken.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must exercise a little common sense in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.

Mr. TINNE: On a point of Order. It is stated in Erskine May, page 487, that:
It is usual to present the report, evidence and appendix together,
with regard to proceedings in a Select Committee. In the Votes and Proceedings of the 3rd July, the Musical Copyright Bill was reported, without amendment, from the Select Committee, with a special report, minutes of evidence and appendices. The report and the special report are to lie on the Table, but not the minutes of evidence. The special report is not, in my view, in accordance with the evidence.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to address you, Mr. Speaker, when recumbent against the pillar?

Mr. TINNE: Is it not within your power, Mr. Speaker, to insist on the procedure of the House in this matter and refuse to allow the report to go forth unless the evidence is published simultaneously with it, in order that the House, the Press and the public may draw their own conclusions?

Mr. COMPTON: In a minority of one.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems rather doubtful whether this matter concerns me at all. I understand that the report and special report were brought up on Thursday last. They will be circulated as soon as possible, probably to-morrow. The evidence, to which the hon. Member refers will, as is the custom, be circulated in due course, but the hon. Member must bear in mind that it will take some time, especially with long evidence and the amount of printing that is done nowadays, to correct it, index it, and print it. I can assure him that the usual course is being pursued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Supply [16th Allotted Day], Scottish Estimates. I understand the two specific Votes are those of Public Education and the Department of Health.
Tuesday: Housing (Scotland) Bill, further stages.
Wednesday: Censure Motion on Safeguarding and Empire Markets.
Thursday: Finance Bill, Report stage.
Friday: Unemployment Insurance, Money Resolution, Committee.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
May I say for the convenience of the House that the White Paper relating to the Unemployment Insurance Money Resolution will be available in the Vote

Office, I hope, on Monday, and the Resolution, itself will be put on the Paper on Tuesday.

Mr. BALDWIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say now when Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates will be put down? I asked last week, and I do not know whether anything has been settled since.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I have had no notice of that question. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me notice, I will reply to it.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 145.

Division No. 428.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Percy A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cowan, D. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Daggar, George
Haycock, A. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dallas, George
Hayes, John Henry


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Arnott, John
Day, Harry
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Ayles, Walter
Dickson, T.
Herriotts, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dukes, C.
Hoffman, P. C.


Barnes, Alfred John
Duncan, Charles
Hollins, A.


Barr, James
Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Horrabin, J. F.


Bellamy, Albert
Egan, W. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Foot, Isaac
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Isaacs, George


Benson, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Johnston, Thomas


Blindell, James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gill, T. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Glassey, A. E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Brothers, M.
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Thomas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kinley, J.


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Milner
Kirkwood, D.


Burgess, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Knight, Holford


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lang, Gordon


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Groves, Thomas E.
Lathan, G.


Cameron, A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawrence, Susan


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Church, Major A. G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lawson, John James


Clarke, J. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cluse, W. S.
Harbord, A.
Leach, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Paling, Wilfrid
Snell, Harry


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lindley, Fred W.
Perry, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Logan, David Gilbert
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stephen, Campbell


Longbottom, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lunn, William
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Price, M. P.
Sullivan, J.


McElwee, A.
Pybus, Percy John
Sutton, J. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKinlay, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


MacLaren, Andrew
Richards, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Toole, Joseph


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ritson, J.
Tout, W. J.


McShane, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Romeril, H. G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mansfield, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Viant, S. P.


Marcus, M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Walkden, A. G.


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Walker, J.


Marley, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watkins, F. C.


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Matters, L. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Melville, Sir James
Scott, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Messer, Fred
Scurr, John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Middleton, G.
Sexton, James
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Millar, J. D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
West, F. R.


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, Joseph


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
White, H. G.


Montague, Frederick
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morley, Ralph
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shinwell, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mort, D. L.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sinkinson, George
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Murnin, Hugh
Sitch, Charles H.
Wise, E. F.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)



Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Palin, John Henry
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Albery, Irving James
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurd, Percy A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Sir Gerald R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Iveagh, Countess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Berry, Sir George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bird, Ernest Roy
Ferguson, Sir John
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fielden, E. B.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Butler, R. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meller, R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Connor, T. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Colman, N. C. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Sir George


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)




Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Somerset, Thomas
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney R.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, Sir John James


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Womersley, W. J.


Salmon, Major I.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Tinne, J. A.



Skelton, A. N.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Train, J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL [Lords].

Changed to "Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis and Asbestosis) Bill [Lords],"

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hendon Rural) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Kidderminster and Llanelly) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Clacton-on-Sea Pier Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Fife Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords],

Sidmouth Electricity Bill [Lords],

Wednesbury Corporation Bill [Lords],

Llanelly District Traction Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Morecambe and Heysham." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the East Dean and
United Districts Joint Hospital District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of West Ham to execute street works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes." [West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vary the powers of the Trustees under the Trust Disposition and Settlement and Codicils of the Most Noble John Douglas Sutherland Campbell, Ninth Duke of Argyll, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, by giving authority to the said Trustees to sell the Trust Estate or any part thereof and to provide for the application of the proceeds of such sale; and for other purposes." [Argyll Trust Estate Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Lee Conservancy Board and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of West Ham to execute works for the improvement of the River Lee and other rivers in and adjoining that borough; to provide for the making of contributions thereto by other authorities; to confer further powers with reference to the said river and its tributaries; and for other purposes." [River Lee (Flood Relief, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to construct a new quay and other works; to confer further borrowing powers upon the Corporation; and for other purposes." [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Argyll Trust Estate Bill [Lords],

River Lee (Flood Relief, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (Recommitted) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), and not amended on re-committal, further considered.

CLAUSE 10.—(Rate of speed.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 8, leave out the words "conviction for a first or second," and insert instead thereof the words:
first or second conviction for an."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words:
provided that—

(a) no speed limit shall be imposed on any vehicle in the case of which no speed limit is provided by the said Schedule; and
(b) a regulation under this sub-section shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament."

This is in some respects the most important Amendment of the day. In Committee upstairs when we had decided that there should be no speed limit and we came to discuss in the said Schedule what should be the speed limits of the heavy commercial vehicles and chars-a-bancs, in fact everything except the light vehicles, there was considerable difference of opinion, not necessarily on the different sides of the Committee, but between different members of the Committee, as to what was an appropriate speed limit for these heavy vehicles. It was agreed that there should be some speed limit for them, but there was a difference of opinion, widely held, as to what the appropriate speed limit should be. After a considerable amount of discussion, a suggestion was made by, I think, the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) which, happily, met with the approval of the whole Committee, namely, that we should allow the Minister to put into his Bill Schedule 1, and that the needs of the
future might be met by allowing him by regulation to vary the speed if he thought that it was necessary.
4.0 p.m.
That ought, I think, to commend itself to the House, because in a new and progressive industry it is obviously impossible now to say what should be the proper speed limit 10 or 15 years hence, and unless something is put in the Bill to allow the Minister to vary it, you may have, as happened in the Act of 1903, which this Measure supersedes, ridiculous limits which ought to have been done away with 10 or 15 years before, but could not be done away with because the Government of the day could not find time to pass the necessary legislation. Therefore, with the approval, I think, of the Minister, I am moving this Amendment, which gives complete Parliamentary control—not a mere lying of a regulation on the Table, but each House of Parliament having to approve of the change by a definite vote giving power to the Minister to vary these speeds. I am told that there is some apprehension on the part of those representing municipalities owing to the fact that this Amendment leaves out the words:
in relation to any motor vehicles used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes.
Obviously, these special vehicles are included in the general powers given to the Minister, and he will, in the exercise of his discretion, give such speeds as he likes to these various vehicles now, and when it is necessary to vary them, he will do so.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This Amendment, as was indicated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, arises out of the agreement to which we came in Committee, and is a sensible and rational proposal in itself, in view of the possibility of changing conditions, and I propose to accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has, on behalf of the London County Council, drawn my attention to a doubt in their mind as to whether, in the new circumstances, we should be able to make a variation of the speed limits in the interest of the fire brigade and ambulance service. I am, advised that that power would remain, notwithstanding the change
in the form of the Clause, and I think that is so. If, however, the London County Council would like to make any representations if they are still in doubt, I should be willing to consider them, and I have no doubt in that case, in co-operation with their Lordships' House, we should be able to put the matter right.

Mr. HARRIS: I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. To the fire brigade and ambulance service speed is essential, because they have to work against time in order to save life, and their services, therefore, should be protected against undue interference.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Reckless or dangerous driving.)

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted under this sub-section solely on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness.
I look upon this Amendment as an extremely important one. At the present time, as the Bill stands, on the word of a young policeman who has just been appointed, a man can be fined £50 for a first conviction, and £100 for a second or subsequent conviction and sentenced to four months' imprisonment solely on the uncorroborated evidence of one young constable. [An HON. MEMBER: "He might be an old one."] There are both kinds of constables, but every constable has to be young some time, and we have to make rules and regulations to take into account a young constable as well as an old one. He may be a man who has just been appointed and knows very little about motors, and because, in his view, a person is driving dangerously, then, on the evidence of that young constable, a man may be sentenced to no less than four months' imprisonment. We know that in various cases—for instance, in street offences—there has to be a second witness, some corroborative evidence, and all that we are asking here is that a person shall not be convicted on the evidence of one person. Clause 10 (3), for what is a much less grave offence, the question of speed, lays down that a person
shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one wit-
ness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed.
That is a comparatively minor offence, to obtain a conviction for which two witnesses are necessary. How much more necessary is it, when there is a very serious offence, that there should be corroborative evidence, and all that we are asking here is that there should be such corroborative evidence. If it be right and proper to have it for a minor offence, surely it is right and proper to have it for a major offence? Some people may say that this applies only to the rich man, but, after all, there are many drivers of commercial cars who will be put at the mercy of a constable's evidence. Such a driver may be convicted, and may lose his job. People may say, "Let him appeal. He has the right of appeal." But do people realise what it will cost a man if he appeals? It will cost, probably, £100, and no ordinary motor-driver has that money available in order to appeal.
What is the law in Scotland? It says that no man may be convicted solely on the evidence of one person. We put a question to the Lord Advocate. We asked him definitely whether, during the 27 years that the Act has been in force for dangerous driving in Scotland, there had been any difficulty there in obtaining two witnesses or corroborative evidence, and he said, "I must, in justice and fairness, say that we have had no difficulty whatever in obtaining convictions in Scotland." That Act in Scotland has proved the necessity of having corroborative evidence, and having been proved to be working successfully in Scotland, we ought to do the same thing here. We are starting what is, after all, a quite new offence, and a very serious offence indeed, and it is most dangerous that we should allow a person to be convicted solely on the evidence of one person, without any corroborative evidence. We are not saying that it is necessary absolutely to have two witnesses to the actual fact, but we suggest that there should be a second witness for the circumstances of the case.
We are told, too, that this Bill does not alter the existing law. It alters it very much. We have taken away the speed limit, but, instead, we have put in two new offences—dangerous driving and
careless driving. We have altered the law very considerably, and I maintain that we ought most certainly here to have corroborative evidence. Seeing that this has worked so satisfactorily for the past 27 years in Scotland, seeing that the Lord Advocate has told us that he has had no difficulty whatever in obtaining convictions, I think it takes away the whole basis and foundation of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that in this country we should start a new principle altogether. I do not see that there is likely to be any difficulty in carrying out the Amendment.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) that this is a most important Amendment. It is one of a series covering the same point which have been put on the Order Paper, and it is an Amendment which we desire to apply, not only to this particular class of offence, but to other offences which are created under this Bill. In this Bill, a number of new offences are being created, and I feel sure that it is the desire of all parties in this House that those offences should be treated as carefully in the future as other offences have been treated in the past. We are in entire agreement that dangerous driving is a very serious offence indeed in certain circumstances. At the same time it is important that adequate and proper protection should be given to the accused person against any possible miscarriage of justice. When this Bill was passing through Committee there was a considerable amount of argument on this point. The first suggestion made was that there ought to be two witnesses, as is the case in Scotland. That seems to dispose of the objection that was raised by the Minister of Transport that the necessity of having two witnesses would make this Measure administratively impossible. I think the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that if this Amendment were insisted upon and passed he, for one, would wash his hands of this Bill, because he felt that it would not be possible to put it into force. It is difficult to reconcile that view with the present state of things in Scotland where
this Act is intended to apply. We are not asking, under this Amendment, for two witnesses, but we are asking for some corroborative evidence besides that of a single witness which is at present provided for in the Bill.
The learned Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that corroboration for certain offences is no new thing in our law; it simply means that some facts have been produced which tend to render more probable the truth of the testimony or the witness on some material point. It may well be that, in many cases, the magistrate would not convict without some corroboration being forthcoming. I think magistrates who took this Measure seriously, and administered it in a proper judicial spirit, would insist upon corroboration, but in regard to this class of offence we ought to lay down definitely, as has been laid down in connection with other offences, that corroboration on material details is necessary. It was suggested during the Committee stage that if this Amendment were insisted upon many people might escape who would otherwise be convicted. I think we all agree that it would be better for a few guilty people to escape than that one single innocent person should be convicted.
Where there is a possibility of an error being made, the law provides already for corroboration. In bad cases of dangerous driving I cannot conceive that it would not be perfectly easy to obtain corroboration. It is almost impossible to imagine any serious case of dangerous driving where there would not be any amount of corroborative evidence forthcoming. This Measure applies not only to dangerous driving, but also to a comparatively trivial offence, namely, the offence of carelessness. Personally, I take strong exception to the creation of such an offence, and I am supported in that view by the fact that the Royal Commission itself was opposed to the creation of the separate offence of careless driving as distinct from dangerous driving. This Amendment is not intended to apply to what is relatively a trivial offence. The Bill provides that if any person drives a motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the roads he shall be guilty of an offence. It may be quite right to lay down a condition of that kind, although the Royal
Commission, after very careful consideration, came to the opposite conclusion.
I am not concerned with arguing that point at the moment, and, for the sake of my argument, I am prepared to admit that it may be perfectly proper to create an offence of that kind in order to ensure that all who use the roads should show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. After all, an offence of that kind is largely a matter of opinion, and what is considered to be reasonable consideration in the mind of one person may be considered to be totally unreasonable in the mind of another person. This offence is largely a matter of opinion and for this reason corroborative evidence ought to be forthcoming.
When we were discussing this matter in Committee, I think the Minister of Transport made a false point when he suggested that no corroboration was necessary in the case of murder. The answer to that is that a man may be found guilty of murder when there is no witness forthcoming at all relating to the actual offence. Of course, the strongest and overwhelming corroboration is needed of every material point in a case of murder before there is any possibility of the accused man being convicted. I think the Minister of Transport will admit that there is no comparison between the crime of murder and the kind of offence which we are now considering. A man may be convicted solely on the evidence of one young policeman. I should be the last to suggest any unfairness in regard to the police, because I think they carry out extremely difficult duties in a manner which reflects the utmost credit upon them. You are bound to have here and there, in a force like that, some black sheep, and men who may be a little over-officious. On the whole, however, I think we have every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which the police discharge their duties. Anyone who has been brought into contact with the proceedings in our criminal Courts must realise that the police are only human, and, once a charge has been made, there is a natural tendency to try to support it and carry it through. There is always a natural desire to obtain a conviction, and for that reason, if for no other, I submit that we are entitled to lay down that corrobora-
tion of the evidence of one witness on material points ought to be insisted upon.
The principle of corroboration is not a new one. There are any number of cases where corroboration, for one reason or another, is insisted upon. There is no difficulty about that. We are not enforcing some entirely novel principle, and I cannot help wondering why it is that the Government do not see their way to accept this particular Amendment. The only objection that was raised during the discussion in Committee was that it would possibly enable certain people who ought to be convicted to escape, but I urge most strongly that that is a consideration to which we should not attach much importance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville): I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in. After the discussion of this point in Committee, I thought we had arrived at some measure of agreement. I will state quite shortly the reason why the Government oppose the Amendment. Although we have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in its favour, we have not, as yet, been able to find a solitary reason why the motorist charged with this offence should be in a better position than any other person charged with an offence. There are some crimes like that of perjury where the difficulty of proof is notoriously great. There are other crimes dealing with matters of indecency where a false charge is more likely to be preferred than in other cases, and those are offences in regard to which the law provides for every great care, and requires that corroboration of the evidence should be forthcoming. Where a charge is brought by an alleged accomplice the law says that there should be corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice. I do not see why even in the case of a young policeman, if he gives his evidence satisfactorily, it should not be accepted.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not a matter of opinion in the case of dangerous driving?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think dangerous driving will be found to be a matter of fact. It is quite right to say that in offences relating to speed only we ought to preserve the requirement of corroboration because we have
felt that opinion is not a very reliable thing, and it is much better to have the evidence of two persons who have measured the time which a motor car takes in passing over a certain distance. I am quite unable to sec, however, why, assuming that a motorist has knocked somebody down, and may have killed him, or rendered him unconscious, he should escape conviction because there is only one witness who has seen what has happened. It would seem to me to be most unreasonable in this Bill to enact a positive defence which would enable a man, no matter how satisfied a bench was that the offence had been committed, through his counsel to say, "You have only the evidence of one person, and, therefore, I am entitled as a matter of positive law to an acquittal."

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not that the case in Scotland at the present time?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was reminded about the law of Scotland on a number of occasions when the Bill was in Committee. I do not profess to have any knowledge of the working of the law of Scotland, but I do know that great numbers of our Scottish friends come over the Border, and it is said that they never go back. That may be due to British law, but I really have not heard a single reason adduced for considering the Scottish law to be preferable to British law. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have had great advantages in connection with this Bill; a good many of us on this side have gone to considerable lengths in meeting some of their speed requirements; and I would respectfully and urgently suggest that this is not a matter which they really ought to press.

Colonel ASHLEY: With great respect for the learned Solicitor-General, I never heard a weaker performance than his speech just now. He simply said, "I do not agree with you, and there it is." Of course, he has a right to his opinion, but we did hope to hear some better arguments than he has put forward. The Law of Scotland may be right or it may be wrong, but, at any rate, the fact that the law of Scotland has worked quite well in the past in requiring two witnesses at any rate disposes of the contention that if we had two witnesses here in England it would not be possible
to get a conviction. I never heard that in Scotland there were less convictions for dangerous driving or anything of that sort than in England. The Solicitor-General and the Minister may prefer the English law to the Scottish law, but, at any rate, they cannot say that the requirement that there shall be two witnesses makes it impossible to work the law. The Solicitor-General very carefully refrained from informing the House that one of the most essential ingredients in this Clause is the phrase:
If a man drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public.
If, as under Clause 10, it is necessary to have two witnesses on the question of speed, why, when speed is an element of dangerous driving in Clause 11, does the Solicitor-General say that only one witness is necessary? That seems to me to be most unfair. If the motorist drives at over 20 miles an hour, he will require two witnesses, but if he is alleged to have driven dangerously, which may, and probably will, mean imprisonment for a first offence, one witness is sufficient. That, I think, is extraordinarily unfairly loading the dice against the motorist.
As to the general principle of requiring one witness or two, may I draw the attention of the House, because it is rather important to read the Clauses that we are discussing, to the fact that practically all the fingerposts in Sub section (1) of Clause 11, for the guidance of the constable or otter person who charges a motorist with dangerous driving, are purely matters of opinion? It is a matter of opinion whether a man is driving recklessly; it is a matter of opinion whether he is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public; the question of having regard to all the circumstances of the case is certainly a matter of opinion; it is certainly a matter of opinion when we are told that we have to review the nature, condition and use of the road; and it is most obviously a matter of opinion when one of the considerations which have to be taken into account is the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which may reasonably be expected to be, on the road. I put it to the House that, as these are entirely matters of opinion, the opinion of one man ought not to be taken. We are not asking for the opinion of two people. All that we
are asking is, as I understand my hon. and gallant Friend, that there should be some evidence corroborative of the word of one man, which may send a man to prison for a first offence. I really do not understand the position of the Government in this matter. I said in Committee, and I say here again, that they have in many cases been extremely reasonable, and have met us generously, but on this matter, on which the feeling of motorists generally is very strong, I do think that, even if they cannot accept this Amendment, they might at any rate agree to the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has said that he could not understand the attitude of the Minister in not accepting this Amendment, but I think there are many in this House on both sides who fail to understand the attitude of hon. Members above the Gangway in constantly moving Amendments to give more protection to the dangerous driver on the roads. I hope that this Amendment will be resisted by the House. Let us look at the matter from the practical point of view. I am quite certain that, among the Members on this side of the House, there is quite a number who have had occasion to sit as magistrates and to deal with prosecutions of this character. It has not been my privilege to sit on the bench, but it has frequently been my duty to act either for the prosecution or for the defence in respect of dangerous driving, and I have never heard any complaint as to the law at the present moment in this connection. It is very remarkable that, in the speeches of hon. Members in this House to-day, and also in the Committee upstairs, not a single case has been adduced in which it was suggested that injustice had been done.
What, after all, is the position? Where one witness is called, whether he is a young policeman or a policeman of experience, the magistrates hears the evidence, and, if he is satisfied that there is no case upon that evidence, the summons is dismissed; and one has frequently heard a submission by the solicitor or counsel for the defendant that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a conviction. When that is so, what generally happens is that the magistrate
suggests that the defendant's counsel or solicitor should proceed to call his evidence, and I am certain that, in a very large number of cases where that is done, the defendant himself can add sufficient evidence corroborative of that of the witness for the prosecution fully to justify the court in convicting. Then there is the question which has been asked by the Solicitor-General: Why should the motoring fraternity be so keen on having special provisions in the law to deal with motorists? It has been stated already that the law as to requiring corroborative evidence is confined to a comparatively small number of cases, where conviction would be difficult without some corroborative evidence. I trust that this Amendment will be resisted.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: The Solicitor-General put forward, as one of the chief reasons for rejecting this Amendment, the fact that he has gone a long way already to meet the speed requirements of the Opposition. Personally, I wish he had not gone so far to meet the speed requirements, and I think that there are many Members of the House who have shown by their votes that they are of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) has said that this Amendment seeks to give more protection to the dangerous driver, but I beg to differ from him on that point. I am not at the moment thinking of the dangeous driver, but of the perfectly good driver, and there are many good drivers who might conceivably be thought by some policeman to be driving dangerously—I will not say a young policeman, because they are not all young, but by some policeman who, perhaps, was not experienced in motoring, who perhaps had never been in a motor car, but only in a motor omnibus, and he would be the judge of what is dangerous driving. There is no definition of dangerous driving laid down in this Bill, and, therefore, the policeman has to form his own opinion on the spur of the moment as to what is dangerous driving. I think the Solicitor-General might consider whether there is not some way—I do not know how we can split two witnesses into a witness and a half—in which we can get some corroborative evidence to assist in matters of this kind, so that they are not left entirely to one witness. I would point out that the
greatest law-maker since the world began—even, as I am sure the Minister will agree, as great a law-maker as he is—namely, Moses, laid it down that in two witnesses there is truth, which would imply that in one witness you cannot rely on getting truth.
I suggest to the Minister that this is really a serious Amendment, and I honestly believe that it has been put down with the sincere desire, not to protect the dangerous driver, but to protect the careful driver who may be penalised in some way by a dangerous driver, who may turn and cut in, or something of that kind. I could explain a hundred ways in which the careful driver could be mistaken for a dangerous driver, though I do not propose to take up the time of the House by doing so. We on this side of the House are very vitally concerned with the paid driver—the chauffeur—and I suggest that, if he were charged with dangerous driving, and came under the very heavy penalty that there is for dangerous driving, it is almost certain that he would not be able to pay the fine. I have heard some of our friends on this side of the House say that the union would pay it for him, but I submit that if he were prosecuted the union would not dare to pay the fine for him, because there would be such a noise in the union if they paid for a man who had been convicted, and probably, in many cases, wrongly convicted. Therefore, on behalf of all concerned, I would plead with the Minister that he should give a little more careful consideration to this Amendment, or some variation of it.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: As my name is attached to this Amendment, I should like to say a few words upon it. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), who suggested that to require two witnesses for the purpose of corroborative evidence would give more protection to the dangerous driver. The inference there is quite obvious. It is that the hon. Gentleman expects quite a large number of people to be accused and prosecuted and sent to prison on the evidence of one witness alone. That is a, very dangerous thing to suggest and it certainly should be resisted. The Solicitor-General told us that someone might possibly be
knocked down and killed and then there would be no corroborative evidence. Surely, if someone has been knocked down and killed, there is sufficient corroborative evidence of the accident and of the dangerous driving. [Interruption.] I can understand the hon. Member's point. He thinks the corroborative evidence must be alive. I do not think that is necessary at all. Things have changed very considerably since the Minister made the announcement that he was going to have motor police going all over the country, and it seems to me, if you are going to have a single policeman on a motor bicycle giving evidence solely on his own account and on his own opinion that a man or woman has been driving dangerously, that is a very serious and a very dangerous thing. Clause 10 says:
shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed.
He himself admitted that it was a difficult thing to estimate speed. Consequently it was necessary to put in that two witnesses had to be found in a case of exceeding the speed limit. Clause 11 says that if
any person drives a motor vehicle on the road at a speed dangerous to the public, without any corroborative evidence at all, he can be convicted and sent to prison.
Not only that, but under Clauses 10 and 11, on the opinion of one witness alone he can be actually convicted of driving at a speed dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and not only to the amount of traffic that is on the road but the traffic that might reasonably be expected to be there, and which is not there. In other words, a policeman on a motor bicycle might follow a car and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, without any traffic on the road according to this Clause, he might get a conviction on his sole opinion as to the danger which he himself alleged without any possible corroborative evidence whatever. Is that the sort of thing we ought to put into the Bill? Two witnesses are required in a case where the speed is alleged to have exceeded 10, 15 or 20 miles or whatever is laid down in the Schedule.
It seems to me a most extraordinary thing In spite of having increased the penalty, in spite of the fact that it works satisfactorily in Scotland, in spite of the fact that you are to have motor policemen to prosecute people for driving at a speed that they consider dangerous to the public, the Minister will not agree to a very simple Amendment which could not do any harm, because if there is dangerous driving it requires corroborative evidence. He infers that he considers that it is right that a policeman, on his sole opinion, should be able to get a man convicted for having driven at a speed which he considers dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The Amendment ought to be agreed to. We are not asking anything serious at all. If it has worked satisfactorily in Scotland, it is obvious that it would work satisfactorily in this country. It is a very serious matter if people are going to be convicted on the opinion of one witness.

Mr. A. HENDERSON, Junior: The last speaker has rather misunderstood the two Clauses with which we are dealing. Under Clause 10, the magistrate would have to decide merely the question of speed, and, in deciding that question, he would have the assistance of two witnesses. Those who have had to deal with questions of speed in running down cases know how easy it is for different witnesses to take different views as to speed. Under Clause 11, on the other hand, what the magistrate has to determine is not the question of speed but whether or not the accused is guilty of dangerous driving. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Danger and speed."]
If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected.
The magistrate has to decide whether that person is guilty of reckless or dangerous driving.

Sir W. BRASS: I think the hon. Member realises that in by-gone days people have been convicted of driving at a speed dangerous to the public merely in a police trap where a motor car has been timed
over a certain distance. They have been convicted under this very Clause, which is in the old Act.

Mr. HENDERSON: It is also correct to say that in the past persons have been convicted of driving recklessly or dangerously on the evidence of one person. The hon. Member and his friends are seeking to change the law. So far as dangerous driving is concerned, under the present law it is sufficient to produce one witness. The mistake hon. Members are making is to imagine that evidence depends upon the number of witnesses. My hon. Friend below me seems to attach great importance to the evidence of an inexperienced policeman. Would the position be helped by calling two inexperienced policemen? Evidence does not depend on the number of witnesses but on the quality of the evidence. If the magistrate is satisfied that the evidence brought before him is sufficient to enable him to form an opinion as to whether or not a particular person has been guilty, that is all that is required, and he will be able to do that if evidence is only adduced by one individual. The reason why corroborative evidence is necessary in maternity cases is because it is obviously very difficult to prove the act or acts which justify a finding that a particular person is the father of a child. Apart altogether from their proposal to change the law, which has been in operation for a good many years, they are perturbed quite unnecessarily.
I quite agree that the police evidence may be the evidence of one policeman, but speed is only one element to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not an offence has been committed. If the magistrate comes to the conclusion that the police evidence is wrong on that point, and that the accused was travelling within the speed limit, it may yet be that he will come to the conclusion that, in all the circumstances of the case, he has been guilty of dangerous driving and, therefore, the question of speed on the evidence of one person is not of great importance in that regard. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Major HILLS: We had a long discussion on this question in Committee, and I took a certain view which I do not see any reason to change. The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) is
evidently a bit of a rebel in this respect, and, whatever may be the age of the policeman called to give evidence on charges under this Clause, he at any rate has the advantage of perpetual youth. He thinks there should be some relaxation, some extra concession given to motorists, and my hon. Friends above the Gangway made the same case. They are asking for a change in the law in view of changed circumstances. What are the changed circumstances? The Mover of the Amendment said that two new offences were created, reckless driving and careless driving. He overlooked the fact that one very important offence is abolished by the Bill, that of exceeding the speed limit, so they really undertake a pretty strong task when they say that, while all speed limits are abolished, the existing penalty should be lessened. I think it ought to be a matter for very careful consideration. The motorist ought not to be put into a privileged position. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as between the function of a witness and the function of a court. My hon. Friend, in his interesting and sincere speech, talked as though a conviction took place by the police constable, as though if in the opinion of the police constable a man was driving recklessly or carelessly, at once the man went to prison. All his case was based on that idea. When you talk about opinion, it is not the opinion of the policeman that matters but that of the magistrate who hears the evidence. It is he who decides. We all know, those of us who have had to consider human testimony—that frail and delicate thing—that in some cases we believe one witness and in other cases we would not believe 10. It is for the court to decide. It does not rest entirely on what the police constable may think or do.
5.0 p.m.
I do not see any reason to change. I believe the Minister has come to a wise decision. I have heard many complaints from motorists, and no doubt some of them are well founded, but I have never heard a complaint directed against the existence of a Clause which allows the conviction on the evidence of one single witness. If that was so when the law was more restrictive, I do not think it ought to be relaxed in this Bill where
the law is being immensely relaxed in favour of the motorist. My hon. Friends cannot have it both ways. A great many of us are very doubtful about the abolition of the speed limit. I have changed round to supporting the removal of it largely on the persuasion of the Minister. We cannot do that and at the same time further relax the existing restrictions.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I appreciate that many hon. Members opposite attach great importance to this Amendment. I also know that some of my own hon. Friends are straining at the leash to destroy the arguments that have been advanced, but I think we are all anxious to conclude the final stages of this Bill. We are on Clause 11, and there are 122 Clauses. Probably the early Clauses may be more troublesome than the later ones. I am anxious to make progress and also to keep up my record in regard to avoiding the use of the Closure. If I do get driven to it from time to time to-day, let Members remember that I do it with sorrow in my heart. I am sorry, but I have not been persuaded by the very nicely put and persuasive arguments of hon. Members opposite. They have tried very hard, and the case has never been better put. But, honestly, I simply cannot see it. The interest in Scottish law which has developed among hon. Members is really extraordinary. Their admiration for Scottish law is marvellous upon this subject. I must look out some aspects of Scottish law which are harsher and bring them forward on the other side of the question. But what we have to consider is whether it is relevant; whether it is right or wrong; and not what Scotland does. The circumstances are not analogous. In Scotland, there is no appeal from the first court, while in England there is an appeal to quarter sessions. There is therefore a good deal of difference. It is perfectly true that Clause 10 does require a second witness to testify that a vehicle was or was not going beyond the stated speed. Clearly, that is a different element from whether a vehicle was or was not being dangerously driven.
The point has been urged time and time again in the course of these discussions that the House is being asked to authorise a conviction merely upon the opinion of a police constable. Hon. Members seem to visualise that the proceedings in
Court will be something like this: The clerk will read out the charge; the magistrate will say to the policeman, "What is your evidence?"; the policeman will say, "Your worship, in my opinion so-and-so was driving dangerously and recklessly," which will conclude his evidence; the magistrate will then say to the defendant, "Is that so?"; and the defendant will certainly say "No," and then the magistrate will give him three months without the option. I have perhaps made it sound a little extreme, but that is the picture which is held up. In point of fact, the policeman will have to say, not merely that in his opinion a person was driving dangerously, but how he was driving dangerously, and what were the elements in his driving that constituted danger, and the circumstances, and so on. The method in which that man gives his evidence will influence the Court and so will the cross-examination of the witness. The evidence of the motorist and any witnesses that he may have will also influence the Court.

Sir W. BRASS: I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks would happen in a case in which one of his new mobile traffic officers with a speedometer was following a car which was going at 50 miles an hour along a road which he considered was dangerous. Would not that be sufficient evidence to convict the motorist?

Mr. MORRISON: It all depends upon the case and the speedometer, and so on. If the policeman had to drive at 50 miles an hour to keep up with the other man, there is prima facie evidence that the other man was doing something. Why should there be a panic among hon. Members opposite. I think the mobile police are going to be of great assistance to them to enable them to keep within the law. The case of my hon. and learned Friend was that it would be possible under this Amendment for per-

sons to be killed by a dangerous driver, and then, as the person was dead, he could not give evidence. Nobody saw the accident, and the only persons alive to tell the tale were the motorist, the policeman, and any other persons who happened to see it. Is it going to be said that merely because there is no corroborative evidence in that case, the motorist is going to escape conviction? If this Amendment be adopted, undoubtedly in a substantial number of cases where the motorist is clearly guilty of doing things that he ought not to do, he is going to escape, not because the police think he may be innocent or because, if he has been brought into Court, he may not be convicted, but because he will not be brought into Court. The Act of Parliament will forbid the case being brought up. That is risking a far too dangerous state of affairs.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In the case of a commercial car that is going at 35 or 40 miles per hour and where the police cannot get witnesses with regard to the speed, will it not be possible for them to transfer the case to one of dangerous driving, where only one witness is necessary?

Mr. MORRISON: It may also be a case of dangerous driving.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I am thinking of a case brought primarily because it was a question of speed.

Mr. MORRISON: I will discuss that point with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am not the policeman in the dock at the moment. I think the House has fully discussed the matter, and I appeal to Members to come to a conclusion on the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 273.

Division No. 429.]
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Berry, Sir George
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, Ernest Roy
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Colfox, Major William Philip


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Colman, N. C. D.


Balniel, Lord
Butler, R. A.
Cranborne, Viscount


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hurd, Percy A.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Major I.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Skelton, A. N.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Ferguson, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fermoy, Lord
Lymington, Viscount
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fielden, E. B.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tinne, J. A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Withers, Sir John James


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Womersley, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Iltord)
O'Connor, T. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hanbury, C.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Wallace.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Cooper



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cowan, D. M.
Harbord, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Daggar, George
Hardie, George D.


Ammon, Charles George
Dallas, George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Arnott, John
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Ayles, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Day, Harry
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dickson, T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Barr, James
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bellamy, Albert
Duncan, Charles
Hoffman, P. C.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Ede, James Chuter
Hollins, A.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bennett, William (Battorsea, South)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Horrabin, J. F.


Benson, G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Egan, W. H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Elmley, Viscount
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Blindell, James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Isaacs, George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Foot, Isaac
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Johnston, Thomas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brooke, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brothers, M.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gill, T. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Glassey, A. E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Burgess, F. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Thomas


Cameron, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kinley, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gray, Milner
Knight, Holford


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lang, Gordon


Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Chater, Daniel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lathan, G.


Church, Major A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Clarke, J. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawrence, Susan




Lawton, John James
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Leach, W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Snell, Harry


Lee, Frank (Darby, N. E.)
Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Paling, Wlifrid
Sorensen, R.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lindley, Fred W.
Perry, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Logan, David Gilbert
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Longbottom, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Strauss, G. R.


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Sullivan, J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.


McElwee, A.
Price, M. P.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


McEntee, V. L.
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tinker, John Joseph


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Raynes, W. R.
Toole, Joseph


McShane, John James
Richards, R.
Tout, W. J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


Mansfield, W.
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


March, S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan, D. J.


Marcus, M.
Romeril, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Marley, J.
Rowson, Guy
Walker, J.


Marshall, Fred
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wallace, H. W.


Mathers, George
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Matters, L. W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watkins, F. C.


Maxtor, James
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Melville, Sir James
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Messer, Fred
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Middleton, G.
Scott, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Millar, J. D.
Scurr, John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Mills, J. E.
Sexton, James
West, F. R.


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morley, Ralph
Shield, George William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sinkinson, George
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wise, E. F.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William




Whiteley.

CLAUSE 14.—(Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 15, after the word "of," to insert the words:
section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to the rights of the public over commons and waste lands), or of.

Colonel ASHLEY: There is a regular milky way of Amendments to be moved by the hon. Gentleman the Minister, and, really, if anybody is obstructing, I think, the Minister is in the number of his Amendments. May I make a suggestion for the hon. Member's consideration which may expedite matters. There is a great number of Amendments and it will be quite unnecessary to ask the hon. Gentleman to explain all his Amendments to the House. I suggest that we put him on his honour, that if there is anything of importance he will explain it to the House.

Mr. MORRISON: I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. This Amendment is really to make clear that the provisions of the Clause do not affect the provisions of Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. It is really a drafting Amendment, and perhaps I ought to have said so. If the truth be told, I am sometimes in a little difficulty to get to my brief as quickly as I ought to do. I am sorry that there are so many Amendments to be moved by me, but we are rather rushing the stages of the Bill, and the men for whom I have the most sympathy are probably the Parliamentary draftsmen and the officers who have had to work so hard.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Punishment of persons driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs.)

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 17, line 21, to leave out the words "or when in charge of."
I shall be very brief on this Amendment. Clause 15 deals with the punishment of people driving motor vehicles when under the influence of drink or drugs. We are all agreed that the person who really attempts to drive, or who does drive, under the influence of drugs or drink ought to be severely punished, but I am not quite satisfied with the wording of this Clause. It may be that I have not fully looked into the matter. This Clause only re-enacts the substance of the Act of 1925. I should like some enlightenment from the learned Solicitor-General as to what the words "or when in charge of" which I am moving to omit really cover. We can understand that if a man is in a car and attempts to drive when under the influence of drink or drugs he ought to be punished. We can even understand the position if a man who, sitting in his car under the influence of drink or drugs, may at any moment start the car. If he started the car it would be to the danger of the public. I think that the words "or when in charge of" ought not to be held to apply to a man whose car is left in the street, but who himself is suffering under the influence of drugs or drink inside a house. It has certainly been held to apply to a man who is drunk and is walking towards his car. That may create an injustice. A man may feel that he is under the influence of drink and in consequence may get out of his car in order to avoid being summoned for dangerous driving. If he goes into his own house and sits there, leaving his car outside, he is legally regarded as the man in charge of the car. It seems very hard that such a man should be brought up and punished very severely, perhaps imprisoned for four months, when he may have had no intention of driving the car and had indeed left it so that he should avoid having to drive it. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will be able to give us some comfort and assistance in this connection so that this sort of thing shall not happen to any member of the public.

Sir W. BRASS: I wish to support the Amendment. I realise that "or when in charge of" is the present law, but I think that it really refers much more to being in charge of a horse than being in charge of a motor car. The reason
for this provision in the present law is that in the case of a man in charge of a horse and cart when drunk, although not actually driving, the horse may go on and he may not be able to control it. Therefore, it was only right that those words should be in the Act when it referred, as I am firmly convinced it did, to the old horse days. This Bill is a Motor Traffic Bill and not a Road Traffic Bill, and practically only refers to motor traffic. Consequently, I think that it is not necessary to have the words "or when in charge of" in the Bill at all. A motor car is not going to run away. I understood from the learned Solicitor-General when we discussed this matter in Committee that a man who walked towards his car in a state of inebriation, or who might be standing at the side of the road or even standing in the middle of a parking place or in any other public place covered by this Clause—without driving to the danger of the public or doing anything in that way—was said to be in charge of the car, and could be convicted under this Clause.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hope that the House will not need to take up very much time on this topic. We are not enacting a new law. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) rightly supposed, it was first, as far as the Statute law was concerned, put into force with regard to horse-drawn vehicles in the Licensing Act of 1872. It is only right to add that when the Criminal Justice Bill of 1925 was before this House the law was re-enacted in the terms in which it now appears in this Bill with regard both to horse-drawn and to motor-driven vehicles. I think that the House will feel that it is necessary that there should be some criminal provision made against, say, the man who, while not actually driving a car or attempting to drive a car, yet starts to wind up, or whatever it is you do, in front, and is so drunk that he falls across the bonnet. It is obvious that we should have some protection; and why should we not continue a law which has operated without any kind of oppression against anybody for the last 58 years?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I cannot think that the right hon. and gallant Member
will press this Amendment. He may not crank up his car. He may have an accelerator, he may be up to date—I mean a self-starter—and if he starts up his car and drives it for a few yards and then stops on the wrong side of a blind corner he may be a danger to traffic which is coming along. It cannot be argued that a man who is so drunk as to do this should escape simply because he is not driving his car.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The wording of this Clause looks rather dangerous. It refers to drink or drugs. It would have been much better if the exact nature of the drug had been stated. Take a hypothetical case of a man who is susceptible to malaria and takes a heavy dose of quinine. In certain cases quinine creates noises in the ears and deafness. [Interruption.] If he has taken a dose of quinine it might be that it has made him deaf and he cannot hear oncoming traffic. Would he be liable to prosecution under this Clause. [Interruption.] This is the first time I have spoken on this Bill and I have not spoken for more than a minute. We are here to criticise Bills, and if any topic requires any explanation we are perfectly entitled to ask for that explanation without being interrupted by vocal Members opposite.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: Let me give the Minister of Transport a case which actually took place a few weeks ago. A man driving a motor car called for refreshment at a public house on the roadside, and, after leaving the public house he felt that he was not sufficiently competent to continue driving the car and drew up on the side of the road. Later he was arrested and charged with being drunk in charge of the car. If a man is taking the safe course in regard to other traffic he may still be liable to conviction under this Bill. Supposing he goes into a field, and sits down there. [HON. MEMBERS "He is still in charge!"] That is an actual case which occurred only a few weeks ago in the North of England.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: "In page 17, line 23, to leave out the word 'drugs,' and insert instead thereof the words "a drug."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
( ) A person arrested under this section shall be entitled to be examined by his own or an independent medical man.
This Amendment merely asserts the principal that a medical man shall give his opinion before a conviction for being drunk in charge is recorded. It is a very important Amendment, and I can see no argument against it. Any ordinary reasonable person will agree that if there is any question at all as to the condition of a person who is alleged to be drunk in charge of a car, it is only right that he should have the opinion of an independent medical man who is unbiased, and who is not the usual medical man provided by the police. I do not say that they are necessarily biased, but possibly, having so many cases to deal with, they get rather used to it. We had a long discussion on this matter in Committee, but I hope we shall have more convincing arguments to-day than we heard then.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: While not entirely unsympathetic to the views which have been put forward so moderately by the hon. and gallant Member, I would like to emphasise again, at the risk of reiteration, that we cannot really frame in this Bill a special code of law for the protection of the alleged offending motorist. A motorist must stand on the same footing as any other member of the community. It is quite impossible, and I think it would be deplorable, to erect as a special statutory defence for a motorist charged with an offence the right to claim an examination by his own or some independent medical expert. At the same time, we have considered this matter, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this will be done—the police authorities throughout the country will be circularised—I am authorised to say this by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—pointing out to them that where a claim is made for an examination by an independent medical expert, that claim should be acceded to and the opportunity given.

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that a similar circular is now in existence dealing with a man who is charged with being
drunk in the street. Under a Home Office circular, he can claim his own independent medical man.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The ordinary practice is that if a person charged with an offence of drunkenness wishes an examination to be made by a medical expert he selects, that opportunity is given him. We will see that the police authorities are properly circularised and reminded of this practice, and it will be pointed out to them that the Government think it desirable that the practice should be continued. In these circumstances, I think the hon. and gallant Member will consider that sufficient consideration will be given to the matter.

Sir W. BRASS: After the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 40, leave out from the word "licence" to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Restriction on pillion riding.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out the words "guilty of an offence and shall be."
The series of Amendments which I have placed on the Paper to this Clause are all drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 19, leave out the words "on summary conviction."

In line 20, leave out the word "offence" and insert instead thereof the word "conviction."

In line 21, leave out the words "subsequent offence," and insert instead thereof the words "second or subsequent conviction."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 26, to leave out the word "public."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to this Clause. They are really little more than drafting Amendments,
but they are rendered necessary by the Amendment made in the Committee stage providing for an additional person in the case of either one or two trailers. This requirement is unnecessary in the case of locomotives, as it is necessary under the Sub-section for two men to be carried on the locomotive. Consideration of this point was promised during the Committee stage, and the case has been met in these Amendments. Further consideration since the Amendment was made in Committee has brought to light a number of exceptions for which provision will have to be made—motor rollers, cases where there is no room for a second person on the vehicle, articulated vehicles and certain kinds of trailers, which are in the form of containers, and small trailers and caravans. Sub-section (5) provides that these matters can be dealt with by regulation, but the House will agree that the practical needs of trade and industry necessitate that the Minister shall have reasonable power as to the regulations to be issued.

Colonel ASHLEY: I thought I caught the word "caravan." Surely in this Clause we are not dealing with caravans, which are instruments for carrying people. If the Minister of Transport takes his wife and family for a tour in Devonshire, or in the delightful country of Hampshire, is he obliged to have someone in the caravan besides the person in the motor car?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Under the Clause there might have been difficulties in that case. Of course there is the caravan case, for example the country fair and so on, where there may be a considerable number of trailers. It was conceived that in the caravan case mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hardship might arise, and therefore I am taking power by regulation to meet that case as a matter of administration.

Major GLYN: The Minister mentioned the articulated vehicle. I do not remember that it was discussed in Committee. Some of these articulated vehicles are very long indeed. Is it possible for the Minister to arrange for some persons to be at the back of one articulated vehicle if it is of abnormal length?

Mr. MORRISON: It may be so. The case will need to be a sound case before
a concession will be made. I shall not give a concession unless it is reasonable.

Sir W. BRASS: Would the Minister explain why it is necessary to leave out the word "public"? Does he mean that all this Clause is to apply to private roads and so on?

Mr. MORRISON: My recollection is that this is related to a subsequent definition of the highway which will come up in the definition Clause, and therefore "public" is redundant.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I gather that the Minister in his speech covered a series of Amendments which he is moving, and I would draw attention to the last of these, where he proposes, after the word "vehicle," to insert the words "other than a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive.' He is making certain exceptions. He has omitted to deal with motor tractors, which will be seriously affected by this Clause. The Clause stipulates that there should be an attendant for the trailer in addition to the driver of the tractor. A very large transport business is carried on by means of tractors drawing trailers, and there is no accommodation whatever for the attendant either on the tractor or the trailer. I suggest that after the words "heavy locomotive or a light locomotive" he should insert the words "or motor tractor." Up to the present time this transport business has been carried on satisfactorily. There is the case of our meat supply in London, brought from the docks. There are 70,000 quarters of beef and 100,000 lamb and mutton carcases hauled from the docks to Smithfield every week. All these are hauled by tractors on which only one man is employed. It the Clause is passed it will add considerably to the cost of transport of meat from the docks to Smithfield Market.

Dr. DAVIES: I understand that the Minister is taking power to vary the regulations under this Clause, and that he will be able to deal with motor-driven rollers. I hope he will bear that matter in mind.

Mr. MARKHAM: Will he also bear in mind the motor-roller that is engaged not only in rolling roads but in tests and demonstrations?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The case to which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury)
referred is precisely one of the cases brought to my attention, and is a case which I was trying to meet. I am advised that these words are sufficient for the purpose, but if the trade concerned considers that I am wrong, I shall be prepared to receive representations and to take steps to put the matter right in another place. On the question of the motor-roller, I gather that these words will give me the necessary power, but I will take into account the points that have been raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 26, at the end, insert the words:
and where any such locomotive is drawing a trailer or trailers on a highway one or more persons, in addition to the persons employed as aforesaid shall be employed for the purpose of attending to the trailer or trailers at the rate of one such additional person for each trailer in excess of one.
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to a road roller while engaged in rolling a road.

In line 27, after the word "vehicle," insert the words "other than a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive."

In line 28, leave out the word "public."

Leave out the words "or more persons," and insert instead thereof the word "person."

In line 29, leave out the words "persons employed in driving and attending to," and insert instead thereof the words "driver of."

In line 30, leave out the word "employed," and insert instead thereof the words "carried either on the vehicle or on a trailer."

In line 31, leave out from the word "trailers," to the end of the Sub-section.

In line 40, at the end, insert the words:
(5) The Minister may by regulation vary the requirements of this section in respect of any class or description of motor vehicles or any class or description of trailers."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Restriction on, the number of trailers drawn.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 2, leave out the word "public."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 19, line, 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) in the case of a motor tractor the weight of which unladen exceeds four tons and a half, but does not exceed seven tons and a quarter, two.
This Amendmuent is of very important commercial value. The House will see that the Clause divides tractors into three classes. First of all there is the heavy locomotive or light locomotive, which may carry three trailers. The second class consists of the motor tractor which may carry one trailer loaded and two unladen; and the third class is the motor car which can carry only one. I suggest that there ought to be another class inserted for the tractor that is smaller than a heavy or light locomotive but heavier than a motor tractor. The weight which I suggest is exceeding 4½ tons but not exceeding 7¼ tons, and I suggest that the tractor should be allowed to draw two trailers. I know the objection to trailers. No one can go on to the road without realising that trailers ought not to be permitted except for good commercial reasons. But I am told that the class of tractor to which I have referred is being built in increasing numbers, and that it performs a very necessary work in transport. I am told that these tractors are very useful because they are less cumbrous than the heavy or light locomotive and have a higher power than the motor tractor. I believe that the Minister received a deputation on the subject a short time ago. I do not know the result, but I am certain that he has given fair consideration to the case that was put. Unless some intermediate class of this sort is permitted, I believe there would be a restriction on transport. I suggest that we ought to authorise this middle-weight tractor.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This point was raised both in another place and in Standing Committee, and without prejudice to the conclusions to which I should come, I did promise to give the matter consideration. In fact I have done so and Lord Ponsonby received a deputation which was, I believe, headed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). We have very carefully considered the point, and I agree that to a certain extent the criticisms made by my Noble Friend Lord
Russell on this proposal as put forward in another place have been taken into consideration in the new draft of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I feel that the House ought not to make the change that is proposed. We must be cautious in dealing with trailer vehicles, particularly if the drawing vehicle is not a vehicle of real substance which can hold a load behind it on hills. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. The combination of a vehicle with two trailers, in my judgment, is not particularly desirable in any circumstances, and it should be limited in any case to the heaviest types of drawing vehicles, that is to locomotives.
6.0 p.m.
There have been very serious accidents owing to a line of laden trailers getting out of control on down gradients. One particular case was recently brought to the notice of the Department. The tractor drawing more than one trailer should be discouraged rather than encouraged. In any case it should be limited to those drawn by locomotives which, owing to their weight, are more likely to be able to control more than one trailer. It was argued by the deputation that in the analogy between this and the light locomotive we may not be quite consistent. It may be a concession if I intimate that, should I make any alteration under the power of regulation which I shall have under the Bill, it will be rather to reduce by regulation the number of trailers to be drawn by a light locomotive from three to two. If that is done, I think it will be logical, and it is probable that I shall take that action. It is necessary that we should exercise very great care as regards the use of vehicles with trailers upon the road and knowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be one of the most reasonable Members of the House I hope that, in view of what I have said, he will withdraw his Amendment.

Major HILLS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the compliment I do not know that I quite agree with all that he has said.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Although I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister resisting this Amendment some of his concluding remarks were extremely alarming, and I would ask him, before he considers alter-
ing the regulations dealing with trailers, to take into consideration the case of a certain class who have always been sympathetically treated by this House, and, I think, deservedly so, namely, the travelling showmen. They are small business men and they have suffered very much recently in their business owing to changes in the public taste and the growth of other forms of amusement. Nevertheless they still bring a great deal of pleasure to dwellers in many of the out-of-the-way places in the country, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow himself to be persuaded to tighten up these regulations in such a way as to hit men of this class. They are most careful and considerate drivers. Most of them have practically spent their lives on the road, and I do not think that they can be accused of dangerous driving. The Minister of Transport under the last Government was convinced of their bona fides. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been interviewed on their behalf and he knows what a respectable and fine lot of men they are. I hope that my right hon. Friend the present Minister will be very careful and will not put any restrictions on the use of trailers which will affect them.
My right hon. Friend will forgive me for going into this matter because he was not in the House during the last Parliament when we gained a certain small concession for these men. They use a special type of locomotive which is classed as a heavy locomotive—I think there are also some which are light locomotives—and this locomotive is also used for driving roundabouts and other amusements of that kind. On the road they move very slowly. They are not ordinary road users. They are not people who make their living merely by travelling on the road. They move once or twice in a fortnight or a month from one fair ground to another, and they are not like common carriers who cover thousands of miles in the course of a month. Their whole capital, their whole fortune is embarked in these little caravans, and they are the last people who wish to cause accidents on the road, and I defy anyone who is driving on the road constantly to say that they are not the most courteous and considerate of road-users. They are the last people to be accused of "road-hogging." I wish my right
hon. Friend to appreciate their position because in making these regulations he may be thinking only of common carriers who make their living by carrying goods—great, powerful, wealthy well-insured concerns, often driving their employés very hard and making them perform long journeys within certain scheduled times. The Minister, very rightly, considers the precautions which must be taken so that the roads will not be made unsafe, but I ask him to remember the special circumstances of this particular class of road-users and to be most sympathetic towards them.
Under the present law these showmen have what is classed as a heavy motor car, and they take out a licence for that vehicle and one trailer. Occasionally, in the course of their business, in the event of the breakdown of a vehicle, they may have to put on a second trailer, and then they are limited to four miles an hour, but they are allowed to put on the second trailer under those conditions because the heavy motor car is then regarded as a heavy locomotive. Under this Measure I am afraid that this little privilege may be taken away from them. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to see that the small concession which they enjoy under the existing law is not removed. I am sure he does not wish to put any hardship on to these men, many of whom come from London and live in the right hon. Gentleman's own part of London. I do not say that they are constituents of his, but many of them are London men and the descendants of generations of showmen. They attend every year the great concourse at Islington, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend should on some occasion visit that gathering, and I think he will be delighted to see what a fine sterling lot of people they are. I hope their case will not be overlooked by him in the consideration of these regulations.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I wish to support the argument advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and to mention one or two points which he, I am sure unintentionally, omitted from his speech. These travelling showmen play a very large part in the life of the village communities of our country. The people in
many remote parts of the country live rather drab lives as a rule, and these showmen help in many ways to bring some pleasure and colour into the lives of the people. My second point is that their vehicles are not like the vehicles of carriers. They do not run to a schedule, and they have not to tear around the countryside at a breakneck speed. They go at a sober, steady, moderate pace from one place to another giving their periodical performances, and I hope that the Minister will show them every sympathy.

Major HILLS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 22.—(Duty to stop in case of accident.)

Major HILLS: I bog to move, in page 22, line 24, after the word "animal," to insert the words:
or to any other property on the road, or on the land adjoining the road.
This Clause imposes on the motorist the obligation of stopping in case of accident. The motorist can be required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring him. The motorist has also to stop in the event of an accident to an animal, and the word "animal" is defined as meaning "any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog." I wish to include any other property on the road or the land adjoining the road, and I ask the House to bear in mind the very limited nature of the obligation which I seek to impose on the motorist. As the Clause stands, if an accident is caused to any person, vehicle or animal as the result of a motor vehicle being on the road, certain obligations are imposed on the driver of the motor vehicle. He has to stop and give his name and address, or, if no one is there, he has to report the accident at the nearest police station. That is not a very onerous obligation. I quite agree that where there is damage to a person or to a domestic animal as defined in the Clause the motorist ought to be compelled to stop, but also in cases where damage to property occurs. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend the ex-Minister of Transport gave instances of damage which was done to his own property in this way by persons
against whom no remedy at all could be obtained. I think this is a case in which the Minister might fairly meet us.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I wish to support the Amendment. I was responsible for a similar Amendment in the Committee and it was strongly supported by hon. Members above the Gangway. I am certain that anyone who considers the point will realise the importance of the Amendment. The matter has been forced upon my attention by the fact that considerable damage is repeatedly done at a corner on a particular road in my constituency. A wall there has been knocked down three or four times within the last six or seven years, and I think there ought to be an obligation on the driver of any motor vehicle which causes damage to property on the roadside to report the occurrence at once. Unless this is done, in a very large number of cases motorists will escape liability where it is clear that the damage has been due to negligent driving. Although the Minister could not see his way in Committee to accept this Amendment, I hope that by this time he has realised that it is a reasonable Amendment and that he is now prepared to include it in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I notice that in this Amendment the word "property" is used and in a subsequent Amendment on the Paper dealing with this same part of the Clause the word "cat" occurs. As I wish to guard myself before speaking on this matter, I would like to know if a cat can be termed "property"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the cat has already had nine lives.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: How is the cat to warn the approaching motorist when it has only one life in hand?

Colonel ASHLEY: I press the Government to consider this Amendment more favourably. The Clause provides that where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road, damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle or animal, a certain obligation is laid upon the driver of the motor vehicle, and surely it is logical that we should also impose that obligation where damage is done to any other property on the road or the land adjoining the road. What we want to do is to try to make those responsible
for damage of this kind, wilful or otherwise, compensate the person who is injured or whose property is injured. In Committee upstairs I mentioned the fact that I myself suffered continuously from this sort of damage, and that, practically, I had not been able on any occasion to get any redress at all. There is a sharp turn near my lodge gates, and heavy lorries often come along there at 30 or 40 miles an hour without paying much attention to the turn. Sometimes they find that they cannot negotiate it, and about once in every six weeks a wall is knocked down. It is not very pleasant to have to rebuild the wall constantly, but, above all, I feel that there should be some way of bringing these people to book, whether it is a case of my own wall or anybody else's wall. Since the Government have embodied in the Bill a Clause dealing with certain aspects of this matter, I would press upon them to consider this Amendment and to extend the obligation to cover damage to property, many cases of which occur from time to time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If I show what the effect of this Amendment would be if it were carried, I do not think that there will be very much difference between us that it is an unnecessary and somewhat fencing kind of Amendment to put forward. We shall all agree that it is undesirable to multiply penal offences, particularly of a kind which are likely to be disregarded. Can it be supposed for a moment that anybody who happens to run over somebody's property—it may be a tin-can or a horseshoe, or anything on the road—will stop and report it to a police officer, or go along to the police station and say, "I am very sorry, but I ran over something Which was lying in the road"? It is not likely, and it is not a good thing or desirable policy to make offences which are likely to be considered in a light manner. It was the serious argument which was put forward in regard to the speed limit, that we had a limit which people disregarded. It was such a potent argument that the House accepted that point of view.
It would be equally undesirable to make some new kind of offence that, if you run over something in the road, you have to stop. If we look at the practical side of it, there is a very good working distinction between damage or injury
that you may inflict to a human being or to an animal, and damage of a serious kind that you may inflict on some property. If you run into some sort of inanimate property on the road, such as a post or a gate, you will probably be brought to a standstill. That is a very good working reason why it is not necessary to make it a criminal offence if you do not stop. In the case of a person, you may seriously injure the person, and if you drive away, serious results may happen to that person. I suggest that we have really arrived at a reasonable and sensible solution of the difficulty with which we want to deal. It is quite sufficient to impose the obligation to stop in the case of injury to a human being or animal. It is carrying it a little wide to say that if you damage any other property on the road or on land adjoining the road you should be subjected to criminal proceedings if you do not stop.

Mr. G. GIBSON: I am not very keen on the whole of this Amendment, but I suggest that the Solicitor-General might accept the word "property." The word "vehicle" is included in the Clause, and why should not the word "property" be included as well? On Monday a friend of mine told me that he was called out on Sunday night to some stores in Leeds, and he found that three or four windows had been broken. He had no evidence as to how they had been broken and the property damaged, apart from the fact that in the basement was found a motor cycle lamp, and that an out-of-work man, standing on the side of the road, came across and gave the owner of the property, who was my friend, the number of a motor cycle and sidecar. He has witnessed the accident, and the man was brought to book. But why should that motor cyclist not be included in this Clause? He knew that he had damaged property and went away without giving the owner any opportunity of recovering the loss which he had sustained.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am sorry to take a different view from others on this side, but there clearly must be a distinction between civil actions and criminal actions. Of course, there are hard cases Where people have their property at the side of the road run into, and cannot get sufficient redress because they may not have had a witness on the spot. When, however, we are creating a new
criminal offence, it must be laid down in definite terms what that offence is to be. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that if any car ran into a bank at the side of the road, and took a piece off that bank, and if the driver did not go to the nearest police station, he would be liable to be summoned for an offence. The result would be that a large number of people would know that they were breaking the law, but they would say that it was too absurd for words to go to the police station. We should be in the same position as we were with regard to the speed limit, when everybody knew that everybody else was breaking the law when driving over 20 miles an hour, and were only convicted when some particular police-trap happened to catch them doing about 30. We are creating a new criminal offence in this Clause, and it is sufficient to go as far as the Government have proposed going in the Clause as it stands. I should not like to see that offence taken any further, because I am certain that an extension will not be supported by the people at large. We should get people breaking the law, and thinking it quite an ordinary thing to do so.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I disagree entirely with the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin). I am a victim, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), for I am constantly having motorists, who are beguiled into the wide avenue in which I live, coming down at a reckless pace, and when opposite my premises, finding they have made a mistake. They then proceed to back in order to turn, and back into my fence, destroying it. I have no remedy, for I do not know who has done it, and I have to send for the blacksmith in order to repair it, and foot the bill. I do not want to make more criminal offences, for I have enough to do in trying those who break them, but there should be an obligation on a driver who does damage of that sort to announce the fact and give his name and address.

Major GLYN: I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not go to a Division on the wording of this Amendment, because it is extremely wide, and we should put ourselves in a ridiculous position if it were passed. The Bill as
drawn is right in protecting life and limb, but under this Amendment, if you scrape a bank, you would, technically speaking, have to stop at a police station and say that you had damaged it. If damage to a wall is perpetually being done, the remedy is to point out to the road surveyor that he should improve the road. If one lives at a dangerous corner, the remedy is to improve the permanent way.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to highway authorities to authorise on specified highways carriage of greater weights.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 23, line 24, to leave out the word "may."
I will explain the purport of this and the following series of Amendments to this Clause which are down in my name. They are directed to two main objects: to provide that a bridge authority, for example, a railway or canal company, can grant a permit for the use of a bridge maintained by them by a vehicle carrying an exceptional load, and to make it clear that conditions may be attached to the grant of a permit either by a highway authority or by a bridge authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 25, after the word "responsible," insert the words:
and a bridge authority as regards any bridge for the maintenance of which they are responsible may subject to such conditions as they think fit.

In line 28, after the word "road," insert the words "or bridge."

In line 34, after the word "not," insert the words:
so long as the conditions, if any, attached to the permit are complied with.

In line 36, after the word "road," insert the words "or bridge."

In line 38, at the end, insert the words:
Provided that where a highway authority are responsible for the maintenance of a road passing over a bridge but not for the maintenance of the bridge itself the power conferred by this section shall be exerciseable by the bridge authority and not by the highway authority.
(2) In this section the expression 'highway authority' includes any person responsible for the maintenance of a road."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 24, line 3, to leave out the word "either," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) to carry a heavy locomotive; or
(b) to carry a light locomotive; or"

This is the first of a series of Amendments to this Clause which have been put down in order that the restrictive notices to be placed on bridges may provide for a restriction in respect of heavy locomotives alone, or of heavy locomotives and light locomotives. A heavy locomotive with the trailers drawn by it might amount to a total load of from 40 to 60 tons, and under the Clause as it appears in the Bill, it would have been open to the bridge authority to put a notice on the bridge to the effect that the bridge was incapable of carrying a load exceeding, say, 40 tons. A notice of this kind, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (4), would have had the ridiculous effect of preventing two heavy motor cars of a laden weight of, perhaps, five tons each, from being on the bridge at the same time. It has, therefore, been thought desirable to throw the Clause into such a form that the notices placed on the bridge by the bridge authority might relate to heavy locomotives and light locomotives as suggested, and otherwise to restrict the maximum limiting weight to be put on the notice to the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor car drawing a trailer. This limitation is provided for in the Government Amendment—In page 24, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer.

Major GLYN: I regret that the Minister has not left the Clause as it was in Committee. I am advised, on behalf of the railway companies, that the effect of the Amendments is that the railway companies' engineers will not be sure whether any of the bridges passing over railways will be standing when trains go underneath, and the only object of having these notices is that the railway engineers are held responsible—and quite rightly—that they are in good order for a certain weight. The difficulty we are in now is that as the law has been made
it will be quite impossible for the railway companies to be sure that some of these structures may not have to withstand a weight which they are incapable of supporting. It would be a very serious thing, indeed, for main line traffic if some person should drive vehicles of a weight which, as the Minister himself says, may be up to 40 or 50 tons, over a bridge incapable of carrying that weight. We regarded the Clause as it left the Committee as altogether satisfactory. We are now informed that this change is really made because it would be ridiculous for the railway companies to put up a notice which would limit the traffic to two vehicles of five tons apiece being on the bridge at the same time. The statutory limit for a Toad vehicle is, I understand, 22 tons to-day, and the Amendment the Minister is moving would introduce into the Clause a Section which would read:
Shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor car drawing a trailer.
It will be very difficult for all bridges over railways to be protected unless we can lay down this one simple rule, that the engineers shall be allowed to put up a notice on each bridge as to the weight which it can carry. That is the only safe way of dealing with the matter, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it and perhaps be willing to receive representations from technical authorities. We attach the greatest importance to this point, because if an express train travelling at high speed were wrecked through a bridge having been broken down by an excessive weight passing over it, the railway company would have to be responsible at the inquiry which would take place by the Ministry of Transport. We shall not be able, under the altered Clause, to retain the arrangement made upstairs in Committee, which was considered to be altogether satisfactory. We attach the greatest importance to the Clause being left as the Committee left it.

Colonel ASHLEY: After the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend we ought to hear something more from the Minister about this proposal. It is almost impossible to piece together this series of Amendments to see what they mean as a whole. We have to take it from the Minister that the highway authority may, in certain circumstances, allow heavy
vehicles to go over a bridge which was not built to carry vehicles of that weight. As I understand the law as it is at the present moment, the owners of bridges over canals or railways are only liable to keep them in repair so as to carry the weight of traffic which existed when the bridges were built. The vast majority of railway and canal bridges were built to carry only, perhaps, 5 or 10 tons, whereas a modern lorry may weigh up to 25 or 30 tons. I had always understood that what was being done under this Bill was not going to make any difference in this respect. The notice to be put up on the bridge should state that the vehicles passing over it must not exceed a certain weight, which would conform to the weight of the traffic which was allowed to go over the bridge when it was built. Now I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend that under the Amendment and under the Clause these elementary precautions are done away with, and that a bridge built to carry 5 or 10 tons may have some 20 tons sent over it. That opens up dangerous possibilities, not only for the railways but also for users of the road, and if the Minister is not prepared to deal with the matter now—and I quite understand that in a complicated matter of this sort that may not be possible—I hope he will receive a deputation introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the case then made out before him is a good one we can deal with the matter in another place. I expect it is a good case, because my hon. and gallant Friend always moves sensible Amendments.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am definitely advised that the rights and responsibilities of the railway companies are fully safeguarded under the Clause as it will be when amended. They will be able to prohibit heavy locomotives, light locomotives or vehicles of any weight above five tons going over the bridges. I believe that is so now, and I am advised that this does not alter the situation; and if that is so I cannot see that the railway companies' interest are interfered with. But the railway companies have very able legal advisers, and if they care to communicate with me upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member I will gladly look into their points. If there is anything in their
points, I should wish to meet them, and any injustice could be put right in another place.

Major GLYN: May I read one sentence from a statement by the chief legal adviser in charge of all the railway business?
Thus a railway company may find itself in the serious position of being unable to prohibit traffic known to be dangerous to the structure of a bridge from passing over that bridge, with the result that the railway and the users thereof will be exposed to the most serious danger.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 13, leave out the word "either," and insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) by a heavy locomotive; or
(b) by a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive; or
(c)"

In line 18, at the end, insert the words:
and shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer.

In line 35, leave out from the word "weight" to the word "means" in line 37.

In line 38, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "of."

In page 25, line 2, leave out the words "not be taken to be," and insert instead thereof the words "be taken not to be."

In line 34, leave out the words "the expense."

In line 36, after the word "aforesaid," insert the words "the expenses incurred by him in so doing."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out the words "by him."
These words ought to be omitted, as the appeal may have been considered by an arbitrator instead of by the Minister under the provisions of Sub-section (6).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Weighing of motor vehicles, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 26, line 33, leave out the second word "motor."

In line 39, leave out the words "or a trailer."

In line 44, leave out the words "or trailer.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 27, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided further that the owner of a vehicle shall not be liable for any damage done to the weighbridge owing to such weighing.
Under this Clause a local authority can compel the driver of one of these heavy goods vehicles to go to a weighbridge to have it weighed in order to see that it conforms to the law. This Amendment seeks to protect the owner and driver of the vehicle from being responsible for damage if by any chance the weighbridge is broken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: So far as I can see, these words are really unnecessary. I canot myself see how any liability could attach to a person who was acting under the fiat of an authority which he could not resist. However, to make sure that no injustice is done I will promise the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point further, and if there does appear to be any fear of injustice we will take steps to see that the position is put right.

Colonel ASHLEY: On the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 27, line 20, after the word "maintaining," insert the words "weighbridges or other."

In line 21, leave out the word "motor."

In line 21, leave out the words "and trailers."

In line 23, after the word "such," insert the words "weighbridge or other."

In line 31, after the word "such," insert the words "weighbridge or other."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 28.—(Taking motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 28, line 21, after the word "committed" to insert the words "or attempting to commit."
This Clause deals with the offence of taking a motor car without the owner's consent, and the Amendment is introduced to enable a constable to arrest anyone without a warrant who is reasonably suspected by him of attempting to commit the offence under this Clause, as well as giving him power of arresting a person suspected by him of having committed such offence. If a constable waits until an offence has been committed the opportunity of arresting the man will have passed—unless he happens to be one of our new mobile police.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Restrictions on persons being towed by getting on to or tampering with motor vehicles.)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 23, leave out the word "with."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 28, line 26, to leave out "or (b)," and to insert instead thereof the words:
he shall be liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) If.
This Amendment and the Amendment which follows relate to the same offence. It was decided in Committee that the offence under paragraph (a), which is the offence of taking hold of or getting on to a motor vehicle or trailer for the purpose of being drawn or carried, was a minor offence and that a smaller maximum penalty ought to be attached to it than to the offence under paragraph (b), which relates to tampering with the brake or other part of the mechanism of a motor vehicle while that vehicle is on the road. This was one of the numerous concessions that I made to the Opposition.

Colonel ASHLEY: And to justice.

Mr. MORRISON: And to justice. The insertion of this Amendment has rendered necessary the re-drafting of the Clause in order to separate two offences to which different maximum penalties are attached.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 27, after the word "road," insert the words:
any person otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment—in page 28, line 27, after the word "road," insert the words "or on a parking place provided by a local authority"—I am not quite sure whether it is already covered in the Bill. If it is not covered, I will allow the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) to move it.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in page 28, line 27, after the word "road," to insert the words "or on a parking place provided by a local authority."
I understand that the Minister of Transport is inclined to accept this Amendment. In the definition of "road," it is obvious that the definition Clause would not cover a parking place provided by a local authority, unless that parking place formed part of a public highway. In the interpretation Clause it is stated that
'Road' means any public highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes:
It is obvious that in the case of a parking place provided by a local authority the owner of a motor vehicle ought to have the same protection as he would get where it is on a public highway, and if someone gets on to the vehicle and tampers with part of the machinery.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I accept the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am not certain that we should pass this Amendment so quickly. I do not know whether the words "otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause" will meet the case which I have in mind. Supposing a man has to touch another car in a parking place in order to get his own car out. I suppose that would be "reasonable cause." Otherwise, under this Amendment, especially in a local parking place where there are no attend-
ants, you might have a man committing a criminal offence if he touches a car in order to get out his own car, which happens to be behind it. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could inform the House that that would probably come within the expression "reasonable cause."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, leave out lines 31 to 35 inclusive.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Regulations.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 14, leave out the words "as to the," and insert instead thereof the words, "the maximum."

In line 16, leave out the words "as to."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 29, line 32, to leave out the words "whether on a road or elsewhere" and to insert instead thereof the words:
either on a road or subject to the consent of the owner of the premises on any premises where the vehicle is.
The Amendment as I have moved it is in a form somewhat different from the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 42, leave out from the word "order" to the end of paragraph (h).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, after the word "Britain," to insert the words:
and for dispensing, in the case of any such persons, with the requirements of Section five of this Act.
This Amendment is to enable the Minister to dispense with a declaration as to physical fitness on the part of persons coming into Great Britain from abroad with an International Travelling Permit, in accordance with the International Convention which exists between various Governments. The International Travelling Permit is only obtained after a driving test in the country of origin. It confers a right under an International Convention on the holder to drive a motor vehicle in the country for which
it is issued, and it is therefore necessary that the Minister should be able to dispense with any other formalities as regards the holders of such International Permits. The Convention is reciprocal and similar privileges are given to British subjects in other countries.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 6, at the end, insert the words:
within whose jurisdiction the person aggrieved resides."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 35.—(Obligation on owners of motor vehicles to hold insurance policies or other security against third-party risks.)

Amendment made: In page 33, line 6, after the word "disqualified," insert the words "by virtue of a conviction."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 33, line 25, to leave out the words "fifteen thousand," and to insert instead thereof the words, "seven thousand five hundred."
This Sub-section deals with the question of the deposit which has to be made by the owners of vehicles in regard to their insurance policies or other security against third-party risks. It is thought by the Motor Users' Association that the deposit of £15,000 would act rather harshly against people owning a very large number of vehicles, who are mostly responsible people. They employ many drivers, and the drivers would often be placed in an awkward position because in the change of driver from one wagon to another it would be difficult to have a different policy for every driver. In this Bill it is not merely the wagon, car or omnibus that is insured, but the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, when the driver is changed it would be very difficult for the owner of lorries and so forth to keep those lorries always fully covered. In the case of the larger concerns it would be more convenient for them to use the deposit for the purpose of keeping a general cover, but they think that to lock up a large sum like £15,000 would act rather harshly upon them, and they ask that the Government should be
prepared to accept a lower figure of £7,500.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I treated the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) so handsomely during the Committee proceedings that I am afraid that he has no Amendments left that I can accept. We think that if a transport undertaking is to be allowed to contract out, a minimum sum of £15,000 should be provided. Some accidents can be exceedingly costly so far as compensation is concerned. You may have more than one accident in a week or even in a day, and we hold that the deposit must be a sum of substance, otherwise some injustice may arise. In view of the handsome way that I treated the hon. Member in Committee and the persuasive arguments that I am now addressing to him, I hope that he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: In view of the handsome way in which the Minister has approached the subject, although he has turned the Amendment down, and as I do not want to waste time, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 33, line 36, leave out from the word "county," to the first word "the" in line 38, and insert instead thereof the words "county borough or county district";

In line 38, after the word "London," insert the words:
and the council of any metropolitan borough;

In line 39, leave out the words:
of which any such council is a constituent authority,
and insert instead thereof the words:
which is so constituted as to include among its members representatives of any such council."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 36.—(Requirements in respect of policies.)

Amendments made: In page 34, line 10, leave out the words "otherwise than under contract."

In line 24, leave out the word "being."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Mental Treatment Act, 1930.
2. Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930.
3. Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930.
4. British North America Act, 1930.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Slough) Act, 1930.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aylesbury, Chesham, and Guildford) Act, 1930.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hexham) Act, 1930.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chippenham and Grimsby) Act, 1930.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brentford and Chiswick and Ramsgate) Act, 1930.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bognor Regis and Chepping Wycombe) Act, 1930.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cranbrook District Water and Sevenoaks Water) Act, 1930.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hendon Rural) Act, 1930.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kidderminster and Llanelly) Act, 1930.
14. Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1930.
15. Board of Education Scheme (Devon Crediton Exhibition Foundation) Confirmation Act, 1930.
16. Burnley Corporation Act, 1930.
17. Reading Corporation Act, 1930.
18. Lochaber Water Power Act, 1930.
19. Lancaster Corporation Act, 1930.
20. Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1930.
21. London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 1) Act, 1930.
22. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1930.
23. Epsom Rural District Council Act, 1930.
24. Guildford Rural District Council Act, 1930
716
25. Stockton-on-Tees Corporation (Works) Act, 1930.
26. Royal Exchange Assurance Act, 1930.
27. Leeds Corporation Act, 1930.
28. West Bromwich Corporation Act, 1930.
29. Darlington Corporation Act, 1930.
30. Rochdale Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1930.
31. London County Council (Money) Act, 1930.
32. Fife Electric Power Act, 1930.
33. Wednesbury Corporation Ace, 1930.
34. Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Act, 1930.
35. Sidmouth Electricity Act, 1930.
36. Brighton and Hove Gas Act, 1930.
37. Clacton-on-Sea Pier Act, 1930.
38. Llanelly District Traction Act, 1930.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (Recommitted) BILL [Lords].

Further considered.

Amendment made: In page 34, line 31, at the end, insert the words:
or (iii) any contractual liability."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 34, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (2).
7.0 p.m.
This Amendment raises a very important and somewhat controversial question. It concerns the right of a hospital to receive a payment of £25 in certain cases for persons injured by motor vehicles. I quite admit that the hospitals have a case for payment. Motoring has immensely increased the accidents that hospitals have to treat. In a great many cases those built near our main roads are overcrowded with cases and a very heavy expenditure is thrown upon them. They have had an important duty to do which they have performed adequately, and I agree that the cost has reached a breaking point. My objection to this Clause is that, first of all, it is not the right way to do it from the point of view of the person charged, and, secondly, it is the wrong way to do it from the point of view of the hospitals. I shall try to show that the hospitals get very little out of this
Clause, and are giving up what is an admitted right for very little indeed.
Sub-section (2) introduces a new principle into our insurance law. Up to now a man has covered himself by his insurance policy for damage he may cause to his own car or damage to somebody else's car or damage to a third party. This Sub-section calls upon the motorist by means of his insurance policy to pay a sum not exceeding £25 for each person treated in the hospital. When this Sub-section was proposed in the House of Lords nobody made a stronger speech against it than the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but it was carried. Before the Committee upstairs the Minister of Transport—who has won the admiration of opponents and supporters alike, and who has shown a good deal of common sense and courtesy in dealing with the other side which we all highly appreciate—made a very strong speech against this Sub-section, in which he repeated the statements he had made on the Second Reading. On the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister said that all sorts of inconsistencies and absurdities would arise under this Sub-section, and he stated that the hospitals were doing the thing in the wrong way. When a Division was taken in Committee on this question, the members of the Government did not vote, and the proposal was carried. I know it is unpopular to oppose a Clause which gives money to worthy institutions like hospitals, and when hospitals are short of money I know it is going against public sympathy to object to any sort of payments, even though they may be illogical, but it seems to me that this is a case of going for money anywhere or anyhow.
Let us look very closely where the money comes in, within the narrow ambit of this Clause. The Bill we are dealing with compels the owner of a motor car to take out an insurance policy covering himself against third party risks, and, unless he does that, he is forbidden to take his motor car on the road. Sub-section (2) states that where a payment is made under such a policy to a third party
in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road and the person who has so died or been bodily injured has to the knowledge of the authorised insurer or such owner received treatment in a hospital
in respect of the fatal or other bodily injury so arising, there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment to an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each person so treated.
Where a motorist has taken out a third party policy, that policy must include the obligation on the insurance company to pay to the hospital a sum not exceeding £25 for each person who has died, or has been mortally injured, or who has been treated in the hospital. Let us consider for a moment in what accidents a hospital will get this £25. In the first place, vehicles owned by local authorities are excluded altogether from the ambit of the Clause. The tramcar and the motor-car owned by a local authority which meet with accidents in which passengers are injured may have those passengers treated in hospital, and no payment need be made for them. The driver himself is excluded as well as any passengers he may be carrying in the tramcar. Hon. Members will see that under Sub-section (1 b, ii), of Clause 36, the policy in question shall not be required to cover persons
(ii) except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise.
In the first place, therefore, you leave out all the travellers in motor omnibuses owned by local authorities, and secondly, you rule out the motorist himself, the driver and his passengers. Let the House consider for a moment what are the majority of cases treated by hospitals. My hon. Friends are rather inclined to think that these cases are what are called third party accidents. Great play has been made of the damage done by motorists to perfectly innocent people, both pedestrians and motorists, and the fact that the third party has not been able to recover damages. May I point out to the House that hospitals will only get payment for these third party cases where a man has run down a pedestrian or has run into another car? Take, for example, the most dangerous source of accident, that of a man on a motor bicycle carrying a young lady on the carrier, who runs into a motor lorry or a
stone wall, and injures himself and the girl he is carrying. All such are excluded: you only leave cases where the motorist has run down some walker on the road or has run into some other vehicle and has damaged the driver or passengers in that vehicle.
I do not want my criticism to be entirely destructive. I recognise that there are evils which the House would like to remedy. My suggestion is that the hospital, for the reasons I have given, have found the wrong remedy, and I am going to suggest an alternative. I agree that the burden of treating all these motor accidents is breaking down the hospitals, but I suggest that this state of things has been created by motor cars generally. Let the House realise what we are doing. We are putting these wonderful machines, the highest product of modern engineering capable of going 60, 70 or 80 miles anhour, on our public roads. The Minister of Transport, during the Committee stage, said that there were 2,500,000 drivers' licences issued. Instead of the owner of every car being compelled to insure against a liability to pay the £25 to the hospitals, and it is suggested that this liability would cost him half-a-crown, I suggest that an extra penny should be charged on each licence. It was stated in Committee that the sum required to meet the liability of this £25 for each person in the hospitals would not amount to more than 2s. 6d. per head. Supposing instead of that 2s. 6d. you put 1d. on each driver's licence, that would produce £10,000 a year. I think that would be a much better way of dealing with this question. The charge should be spread over the whole motor industry. I believe that the hospitals are taking an unwise course, that they are compromising a claim which the generosity of this House has always recognised, and are compromising it in a way which is very bad for themselves. I believe that there is a far better way of doing it, and I assure the House that I move the deletion of this Sub-section in no spirit of hostility towards the hospitals, but because I believe that they are trying to settle a just claim in a wrong manner.

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that the House will not agree to this Amendment. I did not gather, from the remarks of
my right hon. and gallant Friend, why he moved it, or on behalf of whom he moved it. Why should he be so anxious that the hospitals should not do the wrong thing? The hospitals, through their representatives in another place, and in Committee upstairs, said that they wanted this provision, and they were perfectly satisfied with it. Why, then, should my right hon. and gallant Friend say, in effect, that he knows better than the hospitals what is good for them, and, therefore, asks the House to reject this Sub-section? He went on to say that he objected to the Sub-section because there were so many exceptions. I should have thought that, if anyone objected to a thing, they would be rather inclined not to object so much if the baby were a small one, though if it were a very large one they might object a great deal. Since, however, according to my right hon. and gallant Friend, the benefits which the hospitals will receive are so small, and the premium charged to the man who takes out the insurance is also to be so small, why should he grudge the hospitals something that they really want?

Major HILLS: May I answer that question? I object because I think that the hospitals are getting too little.

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that any answer to that objection is required. Let me say quite frankly that I prefer this form of compulsory insurance which the Minister has brought forward to the compulsory insurance which was embodied in my Bill, but, anyhow, this Bill was brought in and read a Second time with the provision that every one who drove a motor car should be obliged to take out an insurance policy against third party risks. I think that probably the grievance and injustice to the third parties was somewhat exaggerated, but, undoubtedly, there have been very many cases in which a motorist has run down a man or woman and, he being a man of straw, the wretched person who was injured got no redress at all. The Minister said that every one who drove a car must take out a policy of insurance, or that in certain cases he could carry his own insurance, if he were of sufficient financial stability.
There was no criticism of that in Committee, except that it was a most extraordinary proposal to make the insurance company the arbiter as to whether a man should drive or not, because, under the Bill as it stood, the insurance company need not accept the man, and, unless he had a policy, he could not drive on the road. The short answer to that was that this was the only way in which it could be done except by national insurance, and the Government, as in the case of the railways, did not want to go in for nationalisation, because it is not a very paying proposition, and, therefore, they left it to private enterprise. But, even in the other House, Lord Luke, on behalf of the hospitals, painted a very gloomy picture, and I think not with an unduly heavy brush, especially as regards hospitals on the great arteries of traffic like the Great North and West roads, where there are small cottage hospitals which are kept up by the ungrudging efforts and great self-sacrifice of the localities, to deal with their own people, but in the case of some of which two-thirds of the beds are occupied by passing motorists who have had accidents; and, unfortunately, a great many of those passing motorists, when they have received treatment, forget their benefactors, or, if they give any donation at all to the hospital, it is so small as not to be worth having. Consequently, a very severe strain was put upon the local hospitals, and, what is most painful to my mind, the local people were kept out of their own hospitals.
Therefore, as I thought, and still think, very reasonably, the other House decided that, in addition to compulsory insurance against third-party risks, it should also be compulsory on the insured to take out a policy—the premium for which, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, would be quite a trifling one which no motorist would hesitate to pay—providing that, if any of those people who came under the third-party policy were treated in a hospital, the insurance company should pay £25 to the hospital for the treatment of the injured person. That satisfied the hospitals, and that is the form in which they want to have this benefit—or, rather, "benefit" is not the right word to use; I should say this act of justice by this House. Therefore, I hope that the House will resist my right
hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. There may be some legal objection that the problem has never been dealt with exactly in this way. The Attorney-General will be able to explain any such objection better than I can, but I appeal to the House not to let some small technical objection stand in the way of an act of justice which I am sure we all want to do to help our magnificent hospitals which are doing such good work for all classes of the community.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Let me say at once that I propose in this matter to leave the decision to an entirely free vote of all the Members of the House, whether Ministerialists, Ministers, or Opposition Members. Having said that, and anticipating what it means, I know that the House will forgive me and will bear with me while I point out the difficulties in regard to this Sub-section, and the reasons which led me to ask my Noble Friend Lord Russell to resist the Amendment in the House of Lords. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has assumed that the only parties to this contract that ought to have any consideration are the hospitals, in view of their need for money. I appreciate the need of the hospitals for money. I appreciate the perpetual struggle of the authorities of the voluntary hospitals to get money for the running of those institutions, and personally, though I know that some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, I have always taken the Socialist view that the scramble of the voluntary hospitals, running a public service, for voluntary contributions, is a degrading business, and that the hospitals of this country ought to be run as a public health service. [Interruption.] That is my view. I am only telling the House what I think. I adhere to it, and sub-consciously I am possibly partly influenced by it in the attitude that I take on this matter.
It is not, however, only the voluntary hospitals that are involved. Although the hospitals need money, and this is a way of getting money for them, the House ought nevertheless to consider whether it is a just and equitable way of providing money. The insurance premiums paid by motorists will undoubtedly be increased as a consequence, and, when hon. Members find that motorists grumble that their premiums are going
up, I hope they will not blame me. They must take their own responsibility for it. The motorist, however, has a right to be considered, and the insurance company has a right to be considered. I cannot accept the view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only panties in the picture are the voluntary hospitals. The House ought in justice to take into account every relevant consideration and interest connected with the matter.
A similar Amendment to this was moved in Committee, and was rejected, on a Division, by 20 votes to 10. The Sub-section, in my judgment, is entirely alien to this part of the Bill. The provisions of Part II of the Bill have one object in view, and one object alone, and that is to end, or substantially end, the scandal of persons being injured or killed and not being able to get compensation. In framing this part of the Bill, that was the sole object with which the Government were concerned, but the inclusion of this Sub-section has introduced something which really does not fit into the main structure of this part of the Bill, and which, as I shall show the House, will work out inconsistently and illogically, not because the framers of the Amendment were incompetent in their drafting—because I happen to know that one of the best legal brains in the country was consulted, and advised on the drafting itself—but because, in the nature of the case, it was not possible satisfactorily to graft on to this part of the Bill a matter which is not really related to the general purpose of the Bill and particularly this Part of it.
There is, in my judgment, a fundamental objection in principle to the Sub-section. I say that with every sympathy for the difficulties and troubles of the voluntary hospitals, which I, like other Members try to, assist in raising money from time to time. The objection was summed up by no less an authority than Lord Atkin in another place. He pointed out that a provision under which a policy of insurance involves a direct obligation upon an insurance company towards an unnamed hospital would be contrary to the whole principle of insurance, and, this being so, it is hardly to be wondered at that the Sub-section bristles with difficulties and anomalies. What are the
practical difficulties and objections to it? They may be grouped under two heads. In the first place, the Sub-section is illogical, and would be haphazard in its effect; and, secondly, it would probably be extremely awkward to work in practice, and it might be largely ineffective for its purpose.
Why do I say that the first objection holds good? The Sub-section as it stands would make provision for payment to hospitals in certain cases only. It is really beside the point for hon. Members to say that the hospitals are burdened as the result of these accidents on the roads. I agree that that is so; I know it, and I sympathise with them. It is a problem of hospital finance, which ought to be faced as a problem of hospital finance. But this Amendment to the Bill is not going to cause people who are treated in hospitals as a result of accidents on the road to pay the hospitals for their treatment—[Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that some people will pay, and I quite agree, but I think it is a matter of doubtful equity, in a provision of this kind, that some people should pay and some should not pay. Who pays? The victim of an accident caused by a negligent driver will get benefit from the insurance company, all being well. He will pay, or the insurance company will pay for him. But the man who caused the accident, the negligent driver, the dangerous or reckless driver, if he goes to the hospital to get treatment, will get no benefit from the insurance company, and, therefore, there is no obligation on him to pay. We cannot in reason or in logic defend an arrangement of that kind unless we are swept off our feet by a very worthy, but nevertheless not Parliamentary, sentimentality in respect of the financial problems of the hospitals.
The greatest difficulty in the Sub-section is that the liability for payment to the hospital depends on the fact of treatment in a hospital coming to the knowledge of the insurance company. There is no obligation to pay if it does not come to the knowledge of the insurance company, or of the owner of a vehicle in cases where a security bond has been taken out. It is obviously undesirable that a statutory right to payment should be based on such very uncertain foundations. The second point
of objection may be summed up in this way. It may be worth while considering how the Sub-section would work in practice. Where a person is injured as the result of an accident, the hospital authorities will have to try to find out whether the injured person in fact receives compensation. It is of course not certain by any means that he will get compensation. That depends on the circumstances of the case. Secondly, they will have to find out, if compensation is paid, whether the motorist responsible is insured or is covered by a security bond. Thirdly, they will have to find out the name of the insurer, if there is one, or in cases where a security bond has been taken out, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle. Their chances of finding out the name and address of the party from whom they hope to receive payment will depend largely on whether evidence of compliance with the provisions of this part of the Bill is produced at the time when the accident occurred or not. Such evidence may not be produced at the time of the accident, in which case it is a matter of considerable doubt where that evidence is likely to come from.
Finally, they will have to find out whether the fact of treatment has been brought to the notice of the insurer or, in a case where a security bond has been taken out, of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in a number of cases where the hospitals are entitled to recover, it is quite likely that they will be in great difficulty and the majority of the cases that come into the hospital will in all probability not be cases where the hospital can recover. In the Local Government Act, 1929, it is laid down that a person receiving treatment at a municipal hospital under the Act shall pay according to his ability. That was honest and above board. If the voluntary hospitals have arrived at the point that they can no longer run on a voluntary basis, the point to which we are coming, the point that this Amendment in fact confesses has arrived, it does not help the voluntary nature of the hospital to introduce a compulsory element such as this. If they have got to that point, it is not unreasonable for the hospitals to say, as municipal hospitals do, if the trust deeds will allow it—there may be some cases of difficulty on that point—that if the patient can afford to pay, and only if he can
afford to pay, he shall pay what he can afford for his treatment. That would have been logical and fair all round. I cannot say that this is fair. It is probable that premiums, as the result of the Amendment, will go up. It is outside the agreement with the insurance companies. We cannot be certain that the net income of the hospitals will increase. There may be some people who will say, "I am covered for hospital damages through my insurance. Therefore, I will reduce, or withdraw, my hospital contribution." I am not sure there is going to be a fortune in this for the hospitals.
To come back to the point where I began, I think this is an issue upon which the House should be free to vote as it likes. The agitation has been very fully conducted. I sympathise entirely with those who, for reasons which we all understand and which I will not name, are very anxious not to vote in such a way that they might be accused of voting against the interests of the hospitals in general or of their local hospitals in particular. I personally will take that risk because I believe I am right, but I appreciate the difficulty of the situation. I know the pressure that has been brought to bear, I know the honourable sentiment which exists in the matter, and I know that the insurance companies have taken very few steps, if any, to put the other side of the case and to defend their interests. But that is their business and they must not expect me to help them out of their difficulties if they do not help themselves. That is the situation as I see it. I shall vote for the Amendment. The House will do as it likes, and we will all abide by the result, but though I may be in disagreement with many Members, even though I may run the risk of being misunderstood by the voluntary hospitals, I have considered it my duty to explain how the Sub-section would work and the difficulties that are likely to arise.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I am sure the House will be disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has taken the opportunity, on a Sub-section which is intended to help the voluntary hospitals, to launch an attack on the voluntary hospital system and to suggest that they should be municipalised and, socialised.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I said I understood their difficulties and sympathised with them and helped them in my own way, but that in no way prevents me adhering to my own view that the Socialist solution of the problem is the proper one.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I should like to come back to the actual point under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the deletion of the Sub-section made a magnificent case for its extension. The right hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary hospitals would have to give up some of their rights under this Sub-section. I do not see that they give up any rights at all, or that they give up the moral, if not legal, claim for payment in respect of the treatment of persons who are not actually coming under the Sub-section. Our voluntary hospitals are going through a very difficult time. The cost of treatment has gone up and the new scientific inventions and discoveries of recent years have very considerably added to the cost of their upkeep. In addition to that, increased taxation has very considerably diminished their revenue and, on top of that, you have a general depression which prevents a large number of industrial companies and firms contributing, as they have done in the past, so much per head of their workmen, with the result that the hospitals are probably having the greatest struggle of their lives. The Bill gives them a very small crumb in this Sub-section in the way of some little compensation in the case of those insured against third-party risks. I feel sure the House will not deprive them of the very small amount of money that they will get under the Bill. I feel sure the feeling of the House would endorse the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be an increase of 1d. tax on every licence, but we cannot bring that about at this stage of the Bill. I trust the House will not deprive the voluntary hospitals of this very small crumb and will refuse the Amendment.

Dr. FORGAN: I regret that the Minister should not have thought fit to ask Members on this side of the House to support his attitude towards the Amendment. This small crumb is really too small to be of much consideration. The voluntary system of conducting hospitals,
useful as it has been in the past, is now out of date and the great majority of the hospitals are nearly bankrupt. The amount of financial support that the Bill would bring to them is very slight. They could, of course, go on with the process which has been in vogue for some time of endeavouring to get for the voluntary hospitals grants of money from different public health schemes, but I wish to register my entire disagreement with the views of the last speaker in regard to the desirability of the House doing anything to subsidise a system which is very nearly effete and which will very soon cease to be.

8.0 p.m.

Sir H. NIELD: The road to Oxford runs through my constituency and within quite a measurable distance, no further than from this House to say Guildhall on the other side of Parliament Square, there is the Great West Road and accidents are constantly happening there, and also upon the Uxbridge Road. The hospital, of which I am the President, has had to spend £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 a year in treating patients admitted entirely owing to their being involved in motor accidents along those two roads. It is hardly credible that those people should take the advantages of that hospital, maintained entirely by the subscriptions of local people and by the bequests of those who have died, and that we collected less than £700 from patients as against their expenses of nearly £8,000. I made the suggestion more than two years ago to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) when he was Prime Minister that he should legislate in such a way that the hospitals would get 5 per cent. of the fines levied on reckless motorists in the district Fines along that road were extraordinarily heavy. The man behaved as motorists are behaving to-day, especially the younger men if they can get cars under the present conditions, in a perfectly reckless and abandoned manner. They do not seem to care a bit about the way, they drive or the injury they inflict. If they were proceeded against, the fines to be a fund towards which the hospitals might look for a reasonable reimbursement. That has been denied. The Bill provides a means for enabling the hospitals to receive a portion of the fund made available under a
policy which motorists are compelled by Statute to take out as a condition of running their car on the road. Most of us who are prudent, not only as to risks to ourselves and our cars, but also as to the possible infliction of injury upon others, do take out such a policy. In this Bill, the policy is not going to cost many shillings to the man who runs a motor. Surely he can pay a few shillings more on his policy in order to give some recompense to those people who are striving hard to make ends meet? In April last, a hospital week in my Division produced £8,000 to meet a deficit of £20,000. We were thankful for what we got. Never mind the locality, never mind Lord Atkin's legal, technical mind upon it; let us endeavour to get some contribution of this sort, and as time goes on we shall see the defects of it, and, I hope, be able to remedy them. Do let us recognise the enormous service that these willing workers, doctors, nurses and others have given for so many years, and do not let us discourage them in the efforts they make.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has not altogether resisted the blandishments of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who proposed this Amendment. The Minister has raised issues which are not strictly connected with the Bill. He gave an indication of his own view as to certain other matters. I want to ask the House to return to the simple issue which this Amendment raises. My hon. Friend, owing to the history of this matter upstairs, apparently had to recite some technical reasons which had induced a certain course of action. We are not concerned with that. The simple issue here is whether provision should be made under the Bill for some payment to the hospitals in respect of treatment which they give to victims. First of all, it is complained that there are technical reasons against imposing a charge of this sort. No one in, this House has a higher regard than myself for the noble Lord (Lord Atkin), whose speech in another place was mentioned by the Minister. It is true that a policy of insurance hitherto has not included the charge proposed. But I always thought the law was a system which was continually under improvement. It is no reason against a
change that it has not occurred before, and the fact that up to the present, insurance policies have not had to maintain a charge of this character, is no adequate reason, in my view, why it should not be made so in the future. The technical reasons which the Minister recited, no doubt under the instructions of his distinguished and capable advisers, are reasons which ought not to delay this House in coming to a decision.
Putting aside these technical reasons, the simple issue is whether this provision should be made. The hon. Member opposite has complained that the provision was not going to be available in all sorts of cases which he raised. It is true that the Bill does not make provision for all the cases that ought to be covered. The Minister apparently is aware that certain communications, a considerable number, have been received in regard to this Bill. I myself have received a series of urgent representations from the hospitals, large and small, in the City of Nottingham, asking me to use such influence as I possess to retain this part of the Bill. That request coincides with my own opinion. We are not concerned with the present position or the future of voluntary hospitals, or the merits or demerits of that system. In the main, I confess at once that I share the view of the Minister, but that is not the issue here. It is common knowledge that in recent years very heavy drains have been made upon the resources of the hospitals, some of them from very scanty resources, in respect of these cases. As the Bill make provision for some of these cases as an act of justice to the hospitals, I ask the House to resist the Amendment and to keep the Bill in its present form.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: My name has been associated with the opposition to this Amendment, and I should like to take the opportunity to say that those who move an Amendment of this description should prove their case. Instead, it has been accepted by many speakers, and particularly the Mover of the Amendment, that they had proved that the case was not so good, because the Clause did not go far enough. They said that the hospitals were not going to get enough. The Mover of the Amendment made the suggestion that another scheme should be adopted. He gave the interest-
ing information that a penny on every motor car brought in more than £10,000. He did not go on to say how he was going to distribute that in fairness to the hospitals. Another suggestion was made by the Minister, who proposed nationalisation. I do not think this is a time to discuss the nationalisation of the hospitals, which is not before us to-day. I hope that those who are in favour of nationalisation of hospitals will not prejudice this case because they have other views.
This is in no sense an effort to obtain funds for the hospitals. It is merely an attempt to obtain payment for certain services which are forced upon the hospitals, and that is a very different thing. These services are rendered by hospitals voluntarily. In one sense they are compulsory, because public opinion would undoubtedly blame the hospitals if they did not accept these cases when they came. Another suggestion is that they ought to ask for payment. That is not possible. If a person is unconscious, I do not see how the hospitals are going to give adequate treatment if they are to wait until the patient is conscious in order to ask him for payment. There is undoubtedly an obligation laid upon hospitals which they could not, if they desired, resist. I think they have a very good and undeniable claim for the small payment which is being given them under this Bill, in the absence of any other scheme which is going to assure them some just remuneration for the services which they render. I appeal to the House to support this Clause.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: I am supporting the Minister in his recommendation to the House to oppose the question of giving this assistance. It is a good political maxim that there should be no taxation without representation. Within the general provisions of a very wide Measure, it is suggested that a Clause should be inserted which should permit people to be compulsorily taxed in order to give funds to certain associations. I believe there is no such thing as a voluntary hospital in this country. They are largely supported by the pennies and two pennies per week of people who have no voice in regard to their control. Whether Members like it or not, you cannot dissociate the management of the
voluntary hospitals from the question of what their future may be. I believe that you do not get the class of service that you ought to get, nor the class of service that is desirable, in cases of this kind. The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who said "My Guildhall," has a Guildhall of his own and a hospital of his own.

Sir H. NIELD: There is no necessity to allude to personal matters.

Mr. GARDNER: If the right hon. and learned Member had not raised the matter, I would not have referred to it. There are just as many accidents in my constituency as there are in the hon. Member's. The police invariably take accidents to the municipal hospitals and not to the voluntary hospital, because they get better service.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am sorry we have had any discussion of the merits or demerits of the voluntary hospital system. That does not enter into it at all. Nor does the question of the young and fast-driving motorist. The hospitals affected are mainly the small cottage hospitals, which exist to supply definitely local needs. Owing to motor transport, these hospitals have had thrust upon them a burden which they were never intended to bear, in the treatment of persons, perhaps coming from very great distances, who are injured in their vicinity. I speak feelingly on that point, because through my constituency there runs one of the major Toads to Brighton, and the number of accidents is fairly considerable. The right hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment made, I think, a most unfair attack, because he suggested that this was an effort on the part of the voluntary hospitals to raise funds. It is nothing of the kind. It is an effort on the part of this House to give the voluntary hospitals bare justice. Every speech which has been made against this Amendment has really been a speech for an extension of the very principle which we are trying to introduce into this Bill. I suggest that it is only fair that you should give the voluntary hospitals the "half loaf" which is contained in this Clause and not the "no bread" to which the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport—although I am sure he is a staunch supporter of any hospital effort or any other
good effort—is desirous of the Committee agreeing by voting for the Amendment. I most heartily oppose the Amendment, and I shall vote in favour of the Clause.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I realise the very wide interest which hon. Members have in this matter, but, as I have already reminded the House, we have a lot to do. Hon. Members are, I think, clear as to what are their views, and I think that we might very well come to a conclusion. Probably the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment will, in coming to a decision, take into account what is the obvious opinion of the House and will possibly have regard to it.

Major HILLS: I have great respect for the opinions of this House always and on all occasions and even when I venture to think that they are mistaken I accept the decision of the House. I am persuaded which way the decision will go and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 40.—(Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.)

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, after the word "person," to insert the words:
or by his duly authorised representative.
If the House will turn to Clause 40 they will see that it deals with the production of the certificate of insurance. The Clause says that:
Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address, etc. … and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence.
And he must have produced his certificate. It also says that if the driver of a motor vehicle within five days produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him, he shall not be convicted under this Sub-section. It may very often be extremely inconvenient for the driver of a motor vehicle to produce the certificate in person. He may be ill, or he may be going abroad the next day, or he may have an important business engagement somewhere which will prevent him from conveniently producing the certificate. Therefore, I am suggesting that he
should be allowed to do this through his duly authorised representative. What harm is there in that? After all, all that the authorities wish to know is whether the certificate of insurance is up to date. If objection is made that the representative may not have sufficient authorisation to ensure that such certificate is really the certificate which belongs to the person who drives the vehicle, I suggest that the signature of the man who takes out the insurance should appear on the insurance certificate, and that the man whom he sends as his duly authorised representative should take a letter signed by the individual concerned saying, in effect, "This man is bringing my certificate." The police authorities could then compare the signature on the certificate with the signature of the note. That should be sufficient for identification.
The mere fact of the man himself going to the police station does not cause the sergeant in charge of the police station to know whether he really is the man or not. His offence may be committed in Hampshire and he may say that in three days' time he will produce the certificate in Edinburgh. Surely, if he goes to Edinburgh, the police will not know whether he is the individual for whom they are looking. The simplest way is by signature. It is not suggested that the country should be put to the expense of some one who knows the individual travelling from Hampshire to Edinburgh in order to see whether the man in Edinburgh is the same person. I sense that the learned Solicitor-General will reject this Amendment not for any good reason, but because he thinks that the Home Office has given a concession in allowing the certificate to be produced in person, and he will say that he is not going to go any further. You should not call that which really is an act of justice in order to make things fair and clear a concession. You should do the thing properly and not grudgingly. Do not make it as disagreeable as possible for the man who has not got his insurance certificate with him, but let him have every facility so that he can produce it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has almost taken the words out of my mouth. He knew quite well what I should have to
answer. I am very sorry indeed that I cannot forego repeating shortly the observations which he made. This is a concession and a concession upon what, after all, is really a serious matter. If a person has not got his proper certificate of insurance the matter must not be viewed lightly. I think—and I feel confident that the House will agree—that one ought not to be pressed to go further into something which after all is enabling a man, whilst he has committed an offence, to have it overlooked so long as he produces the certificate in person. We attach some little importance to producing the certificate in person because, after all, a good many things may intervene. I do not see why the police should be put into the position of having to search and make out for certain whether a representative is an authorised representative or not. It is very much more satisfactory that the individual who owns the certificate, and of whom you may ask questions which may be very necessary in the light of all the facts, should attend in person. As far as I have been able to see, there is really no reason why an alteration should be made.

Major GLYN: I hope the Solicitor-General will reconsider the position of a company which owns a large number of vehicles. All that is necessary is for them to produce a certificate. That is not a matter on which any cross-examination is necessary. Either the vehicle and the man who drives it on behalf of the company have an insurance certificate or they have not. The main thing is that public companies who own a large number of vehicles are insured. I doubt whether it, is practicable to keep the insurance certificate in each vehicle. Surely the proper place to keep it is at the office of the company. It is an obligation on the company which owns the vehicle, and I do not see that the chaffeur employed by the company should have this onus put upon him. It is not fair to ask the driver of a public service express vehicle to take a responsibility which ought to be the responsibility of the company which employs him. The provision is to insure that a certificate shall be produced. It does not follow that the driver of the vehicle when he produces the certificate should be cross-examined. That is
another matter. I ask the Government to consider whether they really think that every public service vehicle should carry this certificate, or whether the owners should not keep them at the office, and that a duly authorised representative may produce the certificate to the proper authorities. The obligation is on the employer, not on the employed person. The Amendment in my judgment is perfectly fair and will lead to the smooth working of large omnibus undertakings. As the Bill stands it will be very difficult to operate a large company without imposing great hardships on the drivers.

Amendment negatived.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 37, line 36, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "of an offence."

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope it is understood, in connection with this and following Amendments, that the arrangement still holds good; that if there is anything of importance in them we shall be told.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 36, leave out the words "of the offence of failing to produce his certificate," and insert instead thereof the words:
by reason only of failure to produce his certificate to the constable,

In line 38, leave, out Sub-section (2).

In page 38, line 9, leave out the words:
report the accident at a police station.

In line 11, leave out the words "and there," and insert instead thereof the words:
report the accident at a police station or to a police constable and on so doing.

In line 14, after the word "convicted," insert the words "of an offence."

In line 15, leave out the words "of the offence of failing," and insert instead thereof the words "by reason only of failure."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 38, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) It shall be the duty of the owner of a motor vehicle to give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a
chief officer of police to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section thirty-five of this Act on any occasion when the driver was required under this section to produce his certificate, and if the owner fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence.

Colonel ASHLEY: There is some substance in this Amendment and I should like to know why, at this eleventh hour, this new obligation is being put on the owners of motor vehicles. There is a great deal too much in this Bill in the way of imposing penalties upon people who do not give information to the police about something which somebody else is alleged to have done. I want to know from the Solicitor-General why it is necessary to put in this new Sub-section. I always thought it was a common law obligation on every individual to give information to the police if they have knowledge of an offence having been committed, and that if they did not give this information they could be brought before a court of law and punished. If that is so, why is it necessary to put in this new Sub-section which places upon the owner of a motor vehicle the obligation to give to the police information in the case of one of his cars driven by one of his employés and information as to whether that particular man held an insurance policy. Under the existing law that man is not obliged to give that information, and, if not, why is this special offence now being created? It is against the whole idea of English law that people should be compelled to give information against their own employés, and the leas that is done the better for the good feeling between employers and employed.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am much obliged for the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Member. It is only right that I should state quite shortly how this Amendment comes to be in its present form. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) of this Clause they will see how the Bill was drafted. We imposed a duty upon the owner of a motor vehicle to give such information as he may be required to give as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle. On reflection that did not seem to be quite sufficient, it did not quite meet the case, so this new Sub-section has been drawn in this form and the owner is now required
to give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a chief officer of police to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section thirty-five of this Act.
That is to say, for the purpose of enabling the police to know whether the driver was covered by a policy of insurance under Section 35. I can appreciate the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I sympathise a good deal with the spirit of it. It may seem to be a little bit harsh and unreasonable that we should come down upon the owner of the vehicle and say, "Now I want to ask certain questions about your employé. Is he properly insured?" One has to have regard to the liberty of the subject and also to the effective working and administration of an Act of Parliament. If you are to have an effective system of compulsory insurance it does seem to follow irresistibly that you shall be able to go to a person who has been employing one driver or a number of drivers and to say, "Please tell me, without the necessity of summoning you to a police court or anything of that kind, what is the position. Is this man adequately covered or not?"

Colonel ASHLEY: I take it that it is the owner who is responsible for taking out the insurance policy and not the driver?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Colonel ASHLEY: I see.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And it is for that purpose, in order that one shall be able to get information from the owner, that this Clause is put in this form. After all, there are any number of other administrative instances where you ask for information from an employer. The Treasury asks for information from an employer as to the people he is employing, as to the salaries he pays them, and so on. We are not seeking to embark on any harsh or oppressive system of interrogation, but are simply putting a statutory duty upon the owner to give the information to the police in appropriate cases.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Amendment of Assurance Companies Act, 1909.)

Amendments made: In page 30, line 18, leave out the word "a," and insert
instead thereof the words "an assurance."

In line 18, after the word "company," insert the words "within the meaning of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909."

In line 19, leave out the words "the Assurance Companies Act, 1909," and insert instead thereof the words "that Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 39, line 23, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) If the company does not also carry on assurance business of some other class, the reference in sub-section (1) of section two of that Act to the sum of twenty thousand pounds shall be construed as a reference to the sum of fifteen thousand pounds;
(b) If the company also carries on assurance business of some other class the reference in sub-section (4) of the said section two to a sum of twenty thousand pounds shall, as respects the motor vehicle insurance business, be construed as a reference to a sum of fifteen thousand pounds, and, notwithstanding anything in the said Act relieving a company from making a deposit in respect of any class of insurance business where it has made a deposit in respect of any other class of assurance business, the total sum to be deposited under the said sub-section (4) shall in no case be less than thirty-five thousand pounds."

I should explain that this Clause is put in in order to make quite clear the position of an assurance company with regard to deposits. It will be remembered that there was some discussion in Committee as to whether the Bill made perfectly clear to everyone the exact deposits that were to be made. If one looks at this Clause with reference to the Assurance Act of 1909, one finds that the matter is made perfectly clear. I think the interests concerned are quite satisfied as to the meaning and intention of the Clause.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I would like a further explanation of the Clause. I understand that the Amendment is moved in order to make it clear that the additional £15,000 deposit has to be paid by any assurance company that desires to take up this compulsory insurance. If that is so, it seems to me that a certain amount of explanation is required. This is a considerable departure from anything which has so far been done in our insurance law. In the Act of 1909 there are
five different kinds of insurance, life, fire, accident, employers' liability and bond investment. Under a later Act there is industrial insurance. For each of these different kinds of insurance a deposit of £20,000 is payable with the single exception of fire and accident. In this case we are not adding a new kind of insurance at all. We are simply stepping in as the State and saying that people must take out certain policies. Why, then, are we placing this additional burden upon insurance companies, who were already doing their work and have already paid their deposits? There are a number of smallish insurance companies that might find this deposit a difficulty. It may mean calling up shares. That may be very desirable, but is it necessary? Most of the insurance companies, though they are small, as far As I can see, are in a sound position, and if they get more premiums their position will become sounder and they will be able to meet the claims brought against them. So far as I can see in no case where there has been an expansion of insurance has a deposit ever been demanded of the companies who are already in the business. I can quite understand that any new insurance company that comes along could be quite rightly asked to put down a deposit of £15,000, but this Clause is a rather remarkable innovation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that on consideration it will be clearly obvious to the hon. Member that some special considerations must apply to a system of compulsory insurance which is for the benefit, not merely of the person effecting the insurance but also of the third parties. It is one thing to say that, in the case of a person who is effecting a policy of insurance for himself, such and such a deposit is sufficient but this is a different matter. These companies are embarking upon what we are classifying as an additional class of insurance by reference to the Act of 1909 as to motor vehicle insurance and we thought it right, and I believe I am correct in saying that the insurance interests agreed that an additional deposit of £15,000 should be required in respect of that insurance. Obviously under a third party risk of that kind there might be a serious accident involving a number of lives which would result in something like the whole margin
of £15,000 being claimed. I should like to assure the House that that is the one consideration which weighed with us in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 23, leave out the words "or intending to carry on."

In line 30, leave out the word "and."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 40, line 13, at the end, insert the words:
or any joint committee which is so constituted as to include among its members representatives of any such council."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 46.—(Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 4, to leave out from the word "of," to the word "and," in line 8, and to insert instead thereof the words "a council to which this section applies."

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in the name of myself and two of my colleagues which proposes to insert in line 6, after the word "district," the words:
such council being the road authority in respect of any road within the area of the council which may be specified for the purposes of this sub-section.
If the Amendment moved by the Minister is carried, obviously my Amendment will be cut out, and as there is a question of principle involved here I wish to know if we can have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: In order to shorten the discussion would it not be possible for the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) and myself and another hon. Member to be discussed at this period, since it relates to a matter which will be excluded if the Amendment of the Minister is carried?

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 6 stand part of the Bill." put, and negatived.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: The Amendment which I desire to move is an
Amendment of considerable substance and perhaps the simplest way in which to explain its effect would be to point out that with these proposed words the Clause will read as follows:
The Minister may on the application of the council of any county or county borough or of any borough, not being a county borough or urban district, such council being the road authority in respect of any road within the area of the council which may be specified for the purposes of this sub-section.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I am afraid the hon. Member's Amendment cannot now be moved. He failed to move his Amendment before the Question was put.

Remaining words left out.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That rules out the hon. Member's Amendment. He did not move in the appropriate place.

Mr. MILLAR: As this Amendment has been cut out owing to the form in which the Minister's Amendment has been moved, would it not be possible to move it as a manuscript Amendment to the new Sub-section which the Minister proposes to insert later?
(8) The councils to which this section applies are the councils of counties or county boroughs or of urban districts having a population of over twenty-thousand according to the last census for the time being.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Amendment which has just been carried renders it impossible for the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment. I understood that there was some doubt as to whether the hon. Member's point had not been met by the Government Amendment, but he is too late to move his Amendment now.
Further Amendments made: In line 14, leave out from the word "which," to the word "that," in line 15, and insert instead thereof the words "he is satisfied."
In line 21, leave out from the word "of," to the word "and," in line 25, and insert instead thereof the words "a council to which this section applies."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. BUCHAN: I beg to move, in page 41, line 25, alter the word "being," to insert the words,
or the governing body of any university in the receipt of a grant from public moneys.
I understand that the Minister will accept this Amendment. Its purpose is to give the governing body of any university, which receives grants from public moneys, the right to make application to the Minister and for the Minister to have a public inquiry with a view to making regulations dealing with motor traffic in the area concerned. The principle behind it is the simple one that where the State by a grant of public funds declares its belief that a university is doing work of national importance, it should make certain that the facilities for that work are not impaired. The Amendment applies to all universities of the kind which I have described, whether old or new, because the traffic difficulties to-day affect them all, but it applies in a special degree to the older English universities where there are ancient fabrics situated often in narrow and easily congested streets.
In the case of the University of Oxford, the situation is really grave. Oxford unhappily is the meeting place of two great lines of through heavy traffic—between the Midlands to the south, and between London and the West. No doubt by-passes will help to get over the difficulty and ease the situation, but bypasses by themselves will not solve the problem, because we have to face the fact that a great deal of motor traffic comes to Oxford for the purpose of visiting the city. Every day there are hundreds of private cars and scores of motor charabancs full of tourists. Any spring day and any summer day the High Street of Oxford is as congested as the Strand in London. From that situation two very grave consequences follow. The first is that the fabrics, especially the ancient fabrics, are in danger of structural damage. The second is that academic life on these busy streets is practically impossible. No undergraduate whose rooms are on the High or the Broad can possibly work in the day time, and lectures cannot be delivered in lecture rooms similarly situated. Many of the chief colleges in Oxford are situated on these busy streets. The dreaming spires of Oxford have long since ceased to dream, or if they dream nowadays, their dream must be a kind of
nightmare. I readily admit that you cannot restore the academic peace which Oxford and Cambridge enjoyed for so many centuries. Those days have gone never to be recalled. But surely it is right that a university should be allowed to procure regulations so as to enable it to conduct its business in reasonable peace. I submit this Amendment with confidence on the simple and sound principle that where the State by a grant of State funds admits the value of a university's functions, it is the duty of the State to safeguard the university in their exercise.

9.0 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The position at Cambridge is exactly similar to that which the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has described in regard to Oxford. If the Minister will give this matter his consideration, we shall all be extremely grateful.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I undertook that if this Amendment were moved with strict brevity, I would accept it, and I do so.

Colonel ASHLEY: Before the Amendment is carried, I wish to draw attention to a matter of machinery. It may be that my fears are unfounded, owing to the later Amendments of the Minister, but I would point out that if this Amendment, which I entirely support, be accepted, an Amendment may be necessary lower down.

Mr. MORRISON: I shall put that matter right by an Amendment which is down in my name, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it is covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 26, to leave out from the word "make," to the second word "the," in line 28, and to insert instead thereof the words,
an order for any of the following purposes:—

(a) the specification of the routes to be followed by vehicles;
(b) the prohibition or restriction of the use of specified roads by vehicles of any specified class or description, either generally or during particular hours;
(c)."

This and the subsequent Amendments are largely of a drafting character. The Clause as it stands enables the Minister to make an order for the regulation of traffic. These words are too wide and vague, and it has been thought desirable to specify more particularly the purpose for which an order may be made. I would draw attention to the proviso, which preserves reasonable access to premises where it is necessary.

Sir G. RENTOUL: This Clause authorises, among other things, the making of an order by the Minister for one way traffic in a street,
including the prohibition of the driving of vehicles on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction.
I wish to ask the Minister to explain his view regarding an Order for one-way traffic being made in a street where tramcars and trolley vehicles are moving in both directions. This point was discussed in Committee upstairs, and the Minister then said it was his intention to omit the words "trolley vehicle," but this has not been done. In any event the omission of those words would not quite meet the point, because there is the question of the operation of tramcars in both directions. The whole advantage of one-way traffic is to secure that all the vehicles in a street move in the same direction, and if a driver is proceeding along a street which he is informed is a one-way street and is suddenly confronted with a vehicle moving in the opposite direction there is a grave risk of accident.
Moreover, it would be more difficult for the police to administer the Order, because the driver of a motor-car, seeing a tramcar proceeding along the street in a certain direction, would be apt to assume that he was entitled to follow. This point has been raised by motoring organisations in connection with many private Bills, and the Minister of Transport or his Department has recommended the inclusion in those Bills of a provision that no one-way traffic Order shall apply to any street along which any light railway car or tramcar is operating in both directions. This is a point of some substance, and I shall be much obliged if the Minister will explain his view upon it, particularly having regard to the discussion in Committee.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The explanation of these words is that it is sometimes difficult to insert words to prevent a possibly foolish Minister doing an obviously foolish thing without automatically preventing him from doing a sensible thing; but it is the view of myself and of the Department that where there is a one-way street we cannot allow tramcars or trolley vehicles to run in the opposite direction in such a manner as to be likely to come into conflict with the other traffic. There may occasionally be an exception. I am speaking from memory, but I fancy that such an exception does exist in Brighton. In that case, however, the tramway is all the time hugging the kerb round a garden; and as long as the tram is on a track near the kerb which no other vehicle as likely to cross there may be a case for an exception. My general view is that it would be sheer insanity gratuitously to mix up one-way traffic with tramcars or trolley vehicles going in the opposite direction, and the hon. and learned Member may rest assured that in the course of administration we shall keep that point of view very strictly in mind and shall observe it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 41, line 29, leave out the words "within the area of the council."

In line 30, at the end, insert the words:
(d) otherwise in relation to the regulation of traffic.

In line 30, after the words last inserted, insert the words:
Provided that no order shall be made under this sub-section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class or description to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road.

In line 35, leave out from the word "after" to the second word "public," in line 37, and insert instead thereof the words "after holding, if he thinks fit, a."

In page 42, line 4, after the word "uses," insert the words "a vehicle, or causes."

In line 4, leave out the words "the use of."

In line 5, after the word "vehicle," insert the words "to be used."

In line 6, leave out the words "guilty of an offence, and shall be."

In line 7, leave out the words "on summary conviction."

In line 7, leave out the words "the first offence," and insert instead thereof the words "a first conviction."

In line 9, leave out the words "subsequent offence," and insert instead thereof the words "second or subsequent conviction."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 42, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
(8) The councils to which this section applies are the councils of counties or county boroughs or of urban districts having a population of over twenty-thousand according to the last census for the time being.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: This Clause lays down the limitation that only local authorities having a population of 20,000 or more are entitled to approach the Minister to ask for Orders for the prohibition or restriction of traffic on specified roads. Under the Local Government Act of last year the classified roads in the smaller urban authorities have passed under the control of the county councils, but in all the smaller urban districts there are a large number of non-classified roads which are under the control of the districts themselves. In the case of the unclassified roads, the urban district is the authority that would be entitled to approach the Minister and make application for the prohibition or restriction of traffic. Take any of the larger counties, the county council is not in touch with the smaller districts in the same way that the local authority is. The local authority is acquainted with the conditions of traffic in the district; they know the roads, where there should be a prohibition or a restriction of traffic, and where there should be a speed limit on the roads They are also the authority which is competent to decide as to any application that should be made under this Subsection to regulate the traffic within the area. I trust that the Minister will see his way to bring within the ambit of this Clause the small authorities which are so intimately concerned with the unclassified roads.

Mr. D. MILLAR: I support the view expressed by hon. Member for Flint
(Mr. Llewellyn-Jones). It seems to me quite unjustifiable that a distinction should be drawn between communities with a population of over 20,000 and others with 20,000 or under in relation to roads over which the local authority has direct control. The road authority in respect to unclassified roads ought surely to have the same right in dealing with those unclassified roads that the road authority which deals with the classified roads has in the cases dealt with under this Sub-section. I should like to urge very strongly upon the Government that they are here face to face with a very big injustice to the smaller communities. I know from my own experience that there are many unclassified roads in small burghs in Scotland—I certainly know of them in my own division—where it is quite as necessary that the local authority should be in the position to apply for an order restricting the use of these roads as are the local authorities of the larger burghs.
I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which raises this point in relation to Scotland. I do not know whether it would save the time of the House if we could determine at this stage the question whether this point can be dealt with. If your Ruling is against me on that matter, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that this question is well deserving the further consideration of the Government. In Scotland, although we have substantial powers under the Burgh Police Act, 1892, Section 385, in regard to the regulation of traffic, we have not the same powers that are conferred upon the local authorities in Section 46. It appears to me that it is an unfair distinction which is being drawn between these two road authorities, that it will result in friction, and that the local authorities in the small burghs will feel that they are excluded from the full exercise of the powers which are being given to the larger authorities under this Sub-section. I strongly urge upon the Government that they should consider this question, which is regarded as one of importance by large numbers of small burghs and local authorities in Scotland as well as England.

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that the Government will adhere to the Amend-
ment. I think that it is quite enough to limit to an authority of a district with a population of over 20,000 the right to approach the Minister to make these inquiries. If we allow the smaller urban areas with a population of 3,000 or 4,000 to call for these inquiries, much extra public expense will be put upon the community in the holding of the inquiries. I think that the figure of 20,000 is quite low enough.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I can well understand the feelings of the two hon. Members who have spoken from the Liberal benches, but I am afraid that I cannot accept their views upon this matter. This is the Sub-section which gives power to the local authority to apply to the Minister to make an order for restricting traffic on certain roads. If the unit of application is too small we shall not get a broad view of the requirements of the area as a whole. I started with the intention to limit this provision to counties and county boroughs, and there is a lot to be said for that, but I subsequently agreed to include urban districts with a population of over 20,000. Every additional authority to which we give the right to apply will mean an additional number of inquiries, additional officers and additional expenses in administering the Act. I think I have met the case with reasonable fairness having gone further than I originally intended to do, and I regret that I cannot fully meet the point of view of my two hon. Friends opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 42, line 15, to leave out the words "including the City of London."

Mr. MARCH: I should like a little information respecting this Amendment. Why is it necessary to take out the City of London. Is it because it is thought that the City of London is covered by the administrative County of London, or is it because the City of London has become so bureaucratic that they want to do as they please, and that they have been taken out of the Clause so that there will be no control over them?

Mr. MORRISON: There is no significance of policy in regard to this matter.
This point is covered in another part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Power of highway authority temporarily to prohibit or restrict traffic on roads.)

Amendments made: In page 42, line 24, leave out the word "specified."

In line 28, at the beginning, insert the words "Subject to the provisions of this section."

In line 39, leave out the words "any proposal for," and insert instead thereof the words "the question of."

In page 43, line 36, leave out the words "guilty of an offence and shall be."

In line 37, leave out the words "on summary conviction."

In line 38, leave out the word "offence," and insert instead thereof the word "conviction,"

In line 39, leave out the words "subsequent offence," and insert instead thereof the words, "second or subsequent conviction."—[Mr. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 48.—(Erection of notice boards, etc.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 44, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(1) Subject to and in conformity with such general or other directions as may be given by the Minister a highway authority may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area.
(2) Traffic signs shall be of the prescribed size, colour, and type except where the Minister authorises the erection of a sign of another character.
(3) After the commencement of this Act no traffic signs shall be placed on or near any road except under and in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.

Provided that."
These and the subsequent Amendments are all drafting Amendments. The definition of a traffic sign is given in the new Sub-section (8) on page 45, line 17. I have got a copy of the Clause as it will appear with the Amendment which I could read, but they are really all drafting Amendments.

Mr. REMER: I want to ask a question about this Amendment, which has only appeared on the Order Paper since the
Committee stage. Are we to understand that the general purpose of the Bill is that there shall be regularised signs throughout the whole country? Everybody connected with the motoring industry, including motorists and motor manufacturers, is deeply concerned that there should be some definite scheme to tell motorists exactly what they are supposed to do. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this Amendment is in accordance with what he proposed in the Committee stage? That was quite satisfactory, and it will save time if he can answer my question.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am delighted to know that at some stage of this Bill I gave the hon. Gentleman complete satisfaction. He never told me so in the Committee, and I feel much happier in consequence of his telling me now. The Amendments which I am moving are purely drafting Amendments, and do not alter the sense of the Clause. The general purpose of the Clause is that we should have throughout the country, in due course at any rate, a substantially national, uniform system of highway indications, whether those indications be upon the roadway itself or upon signposts or otherwise. I think it will be a great help towards the safe use of the roads that motorists shall know where to look for signs and what kind of signs they are likely to see, so that they may readily recognise them. There is another difficulty which has arisen in the unauthorised erection of signs outside houses. For instance, there is the sort of sign we all meet, "Beware of concealed drive." Under the Bill we can make the owner pull it down or pull it down ourselves, and charge him with the costs. I think that is very necessary and should be provided for.
There is a further case which came to my notice one day when driving from Middlesbrough to London, where a night sign caught the motorist's headlights. It was an illuminated advertising sign of an hotel miles away from where we were, and with the name of the town in big letters. The motorist is led to believe he has reached the town whereas the object is to tell him that when he does get
there, that is the only hotel at which he should stay. Obviously, we must deal with that, because it is misleading to people on the road. We have complete power over all these things and to insist upon this national codification. I regard this Clause as one of the safety Clauses of the Bill, and I think it will be of very great value to us as time goes on.

Mr. MILLS: I should like to ask one question with regard to the proposed height of these signs. Everyone who is used to driving is well aware what I mean—the impossibility of seeing some of the signs because of the height. Some of the more progressive county councils and local authorities have reduced the height so that a motorist can see the signs at the level of his driving seat. If anything could be done to remedy that difficulty, I am perfectly certain it would be greatly appreciated by the whole of the driving community.

Mr. MORRISON: That is a point which will be considered. It is not settled yet. Any representations which hon. Members like to bring to me, I shall be very glad to take into account.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I am delighted to hear of the standardisation of signs and colours and that the important point of the size of the signs has been raised. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper, I felt there was probably some significance where it said:
except where the Minister authorises the erection of a sign of another character.
May I suggest that that particular sign of another character should be a very much larger sign, such as they have in France, because now that the hon. Gentleman has abolished the speed limit entirely, his friends, when travelling at 60, 70 or 80 miles an hour, will want to be able to see the sign as they pass by. I think it is vitally necessary that the sign should be of sufficient size and the wording sufficiently large in order that they may be able to read it, because as things are at present everyone who does a great deal of motoring, as the Minister himself does, will agree with me that in many places at certain periods of the year, the signs are painted out and there is no name or direction on them. I can remember spending a very unpleasant night from about 12 midnight until six in the morning trying to find my way out
of some Devonshire lanes Where all the signs were painted out. I sincerely hope the signs put up by the Minister will be such that it will not be necessary for them to be painted every year.

Mr. G. GIBSON: I should like to ask the Minister if he has any intention to make these signs illuminated at dangerous places at night time or put them up in a manner so that they reflect the headlights? I ask because only a few years ago a gentleman in the city of Leeds was going home one night and came to a point where there was no sign indicating that it was a danger point. He met his death at that place, and since then the authorities have erected a reflecting sign at that particular spot, with a red lamp at night. I should like to know whether it is intended to provide signs which can be seen at night by motorists at dangerous spots.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The fact that hon. Members have been telling us their personal experiences is probably my fault. This is a question which will be kept in mind. No decision has yet been come to, because it is not wise to make decisions until the Bill has passed. We are preparing as much as we can, but we cannot be sure of the form in which the Bill will pass. Certainly the points raised are perfectly relevant, and they will be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 29, leave out the words "signal, direction post, sign or device erected," and insert instead thereof the words "traffic sign."

In line 30, leave out the words "or displayed."

In line 32, after the word "undertaking," insert the words "any dock undertaking or any harbour undertaking."

In line 36, leave out from the word "which," to the second word "or," in line 38, and insert instead thereof the words "there is any traffic sign."

In line 39, leave out the word "prescribed," and insert instead thereof the word "traffic."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 44, line 40, to leave out the words "or signal."

Mr. REMER: May I ask why the words "or signal" are to be left out? It is very important on certain occasions that signals should be given, and if the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point I shall be very much obliged.

Mr. MORRISON: In the course of the drafting of this Clause all the words that could possibly be found to guide us on this point were got together, and we chose the term "traffic sign." That is why we are proposing to eliminate those words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 41, leave out the words "or signal is erected or displayed."

Leave out from the first word "it" to the word "and," in line 42.

In page 45, line 4, at the end, insert the words:
Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of any sign or object so long as its retention is expressly authorised by the highway authority.

In line 6, leave out the word "require," and insert instead thereof the word "cause."

Leave out from the word "any" to the second word "or," in line 7, and insert instead thereof the words "traffic sign."

In line 9, leave out the words "and if the," and insert instead thereof the words:
(5) A bridge authority shall, if so directed by the Minister, remove, or cause to be removed, any notice in respect of the use of a bridge placed under any Act ar Order repealed by this Act, or by any Order under this Act.
(6) If a.

After the word "highway" insert the words "or bridge."

In line 10, leave out the word "such."

After the word "direction" insert the words "given under either of the preceding Sub-sections."

In line 12, leave out the word "highway."

In line 14, after the word "highway" insert the words "or bridge."

In line 17, at the end, insert the words:
(8) In this Part of this Act, the expression 'traffic sign,' includes all signals, warning sign posts, direction posts, signs, or
other devices for the guidance or direction of persons using roads; and in this section the expression 'highway authority' includes any person responsible for the maintenance of a road.

CLAUSE 49.—(Penalties for neglect of traffic directions.)

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 45, line 18, after the word "constable," to insert the words "in uniform."
If a constable in charge of traffic gives directions which are not obeyed, the person who disobeys them is guilty of an offence under this Clause. I think there ought to be a condition that the constable should be in uniform.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it is quite clear that in 999 cases out of a 1,000 a police constable on traffic duty will be in uniform. I thought we came to an agreement on that point during the Committee stage. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman asked for a definite assurance on that from the Home Office, and an undertaking was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 45, line 20, to leave out from the word "any," to the first word "any," in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words:
traffic sign being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, has been lawfully placed on or near any road in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section.

Sir G. RENTOUL: There is one small point which I should like to raise on this Amendment. During the Committee stage a discussion took place on this Clause, and the Minister of Transport said that it was not intended that this provision should apply to the white line on the roads. The words of the Minister were:
We do not feel that it ought necessarily to be an offence for a person to drive on the wrong side of the white line. If a person crosses the white line in a way that constitutes dangerous driving, he can be dealt with under Clause 11 or 12, but it may well be that to drive on the wrong side of the white line may not be dangerous. The line
itself may not be in the right place, or safety itself might demand that the driver should go on the wrong side. I do not, therefore, think that this should be made an offence unless it constitutes careless or dangeruos driving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 29th April, 1930; col. 805.]
I am a little puzzled to know why the Minister has thought it necessary to move this Amendment, and why the words as printed in the Bill itself could not have been left, because the effective word used in the Bill as printed is "erected," which, it seems to me, would make an exception in the case of a white line marked on the road. I think it could be successfully argued that that was not erected, and that, therefore, it was intended to exclude a white line. These new words, however, would undoubtedly cover the white line as well as every other sign of every sort or kind that is either erected or placed upon the road, and, that being so, and having regard to what the Minister said in Committee, I should be very much obliged if he would explain his view with regard to this Amendment, particularly as it bears on the question of the white line.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I confess that I felt some nervousness when the hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to this point, but I am advised that a white line would not of itself come within the wording of this Clause. The word "Stop," or "Slow," or signs of that kind, would come within the Clause, because they would be very clear traffic indications, but the white line of itself is not a clear indication of the route to be followed, and, therefore, it would not come within the Clause. I am bound to say that, on first reading these words, I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right. We will read them again, and, if I feel that we ought to alter them so as to exclude specifically the white line, I will consider the matter. I am not sure, however, that I should wish to exclude it to that extent, because it might be difficult to do so without excluding something else, but I think it is clear that it is not now within the wording of the Clause, because it is merely a white line, and not a clear indication of the route to be followed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 45, line 27, after the word "or", insert the words "(b) fails."

In line 28, leave out the words "signal or".

In line 28, leave out the word "aforesaid".—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions.)

Amendment made:

In page 45, line 32, after the word "or", insert the word "in".—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 52.—(Exemption of agricultural machines from 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 70.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 46, line 6, after the word "forestry", to insert the words "building operations."
The reason for this Amendment is that steam cranes are often erected near a highway in connection with building operations, and the Amendment is intended to exempt them from the provisions of Section 70 of the Highways Act, 1835, which prohibits the erection of engines, etc., within 25 yards of a highway.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Provisions with respect to the transfer of toll bridges and toll roads to local authorities.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 46, line 19, after the word "charter", to insert the words:
(being property, rights, or obligations connected with the bridge or road).
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the local authority will not be empowered to acquire rights given by charter and so on which have nothing to do with a toll road or bridge.

Major HARVEY: I should be glad if it could be made perfectly clear that, where the owner, or the company owning a toll bridge, has a ferry also, that ferry will not necessarily be part of the property transferred to the local authority under this Measure.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The purpose is to take the toll bridge, but not to take the remaining property. There is already an Act of some sort—I do not say that it is very satisfactory—for dealing with the transfer of ferries from
private undertakings to local authorities, but this Clause does not alter the position of ferries, but will relate solely to toll bridges and toll roads.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 47, line 22, leave out the word "road," and insert instead thereof the word "highway."

In line 39, leave out the word "owner," and insert instead thereof the word "transfer."

In line 39, leave out the words "shall transfer it."

In line 40, leave out from the word "obligations," to the second word "to," in line 41, and insert instead thereof the words "to be transferred, shall be made."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 56.—(Advances from road fund.)

Amendments made: In page 49, line 30, leave out the word "costs," and insert instead thereof the word "expenses."

In line 32, leave out the word "motor."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 49, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) Advances may be made out of the Road Fund towards any expenses incurred by a police authority in the provision and maintenance of vehicles or equipment for use by the police force in connection with the enforcement of this Act.
(5) The provisions of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply in relation to advances made under sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section as they apply in relation to advances to a highway authority under Part II of the said Act.
In this Amendment, the new Sub-section (4) enables grants to be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of mobile police units. The establishment of such units, as I informed the House in the debate on the speed limit, is, in my judgment, of great importance for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, with respect, for example, to dangerous driving, and this new Sub-section will enable contributions to be made out of the Road Fund for that purpose. The new Sub-section (5) imports the usual provisions, for example, the obtaining of Treasury sanction in respect of the advances to be made under the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Should I be in order in asking whether these mobile police will be in uniform or in plain clothes? Could the Minister inform us on that point?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that that point arises on this Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This Amendment certainly enables me to contribute out of the Road Fund towards the motor cycles and motor cars required for this purpose, but it does not enable me to contribute to uniforms, so perhaps I could ride off by saying that that is not my business. I am not speaking for the Home Office, but I assume that certainly in the ordinary way, and I should think nearly always, these police, when they are engaged on traffic duties, will be in uniform; but it will be appreciated that such police might be used from time to time in connection with the detection of crime where the criminal has the advantage of motor appliances, and in cases of that kind, and when they are looking for bandits, I think the House would probably agree that it would be better that they should not be in uniform.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 57.—(Provision of Footpaths.)

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in page 49, line 37, after the word "wherever," to insert the words "the Minister or."
I think it will be agreed that it is absolutely essential that two interests should be protected under the Bill, first that of pedestrians and, second, animals being driven along the road. Every user of the road is better looked after at present than the individual who prefers to walk, and I am disposed to think the condition is going to be aggravated now that the speed limit has gone. I have spent a good deal of my time walking along the lanes of the beautiful country to which the Minister paid a visit a fortnight ago, when he had an opportunity of driving along narrow roads where very unsatisfactory footpaths were provided. That is not a condition of things which should continue. The Clause to a certain extent throws the obligation upon the highway authority to provide footpaths, but when one considers the form of the Clause, one realises how utterly valueless it may be. It is in this form:
It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide, wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers, proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control.
What does that really mean? If a local authority decides that it is desirable or necessary that footpaths shall be provided, obviously they will go on to provide them, but if they decline to adopt a resolution or to come to the conclusion that such footpaths are necessary or desirable, there is an end of it. No one can call upon the local authority to do what is obviously essential in the interests of the public and, therefore, the only way in which the position can be met is by enabling the Minister, upon complaint made to him, to say, "It is necessary or desirable that footpaths should be provided." Fortunately the Ministry has a good deal of power in this connection, once he comes to that decision, other than the power to refuse a grant to a local authority. I trust, having regard to the reasonableness of the suggestion, the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
I think it is obvious to anyone reading my hon. Friend's Amendments and those in my own name, that we are desirous of achieving the same object. The Amendment is for the purpose of securing that it shall be not at the will of the local authority to have these footpaths or grass margins but at the will of the Minister, should such local authorities as have the power not actually exercise it. This Clause was introduced during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, and when it came to the Committee upstairs, it was obvious that there was a strong feeling that the power to place footpaths along the sides of our roads should not be solely at the discretion of the local authorities. It was recognised that it should be at the discretion rather of the Minister and not solely of the local authorities. We are all agreed as to the reasons for these Amendments. They are for the purpose of ensuring that human beings and live stock shall be protected from these high-powered cars that dash round our countryside. There is only one way of doing it, and that is to get these footpaths. The motorists themselves want
them from the point of view of more safety and security to themselves. Surely to goodness the pedestrians want them, because they want some sort of security against these vehicles of destruction. The farmers want them, because they want their livestock to be protected against the dangers that assail them should they come in contact with any motor vehicle. Speaking from another point of view altogether, the humane societies working for animals strongly desire them because they would ensure that the work in which they are engaged will be adequately forwarded and would make sure that animals have a fair chance of keeping their life while progressing along the main roads. There is another section of the community, those who admire the countryside and desire to see preserved the amenities and beauties of Great Britain. I can conceive of nothing more reasonable to protect those beauties than that there should be these footpaths on the side of our roads.
The Minister will, no doubt, ask where the money is to come from. I hope it will not cause undue consternation if I suggest that it should come from the Road Fund. Why should not the motorists give something towards the welfare and safety of pedestrian and, horse traffic generally? I think there is probably unanimity among all sections of the House in regard to this question. The Clause as it stands is really a pious Resolution and nothing else. You have to give the Minister power to override the local authorities, and to make certain that, where the Minister considers it desirable, he has power to put pressure upon them I submit that the Minister should be given this power, although it is against all our ideas to give more power to bureaucracy. On this occasion, I feel sure that the power, especially in the hands of my hon. Friend, would be exercised with discretion, and with the geniality and sympathy which he shows in all such matters.

Colonel ASHLEY: I wonder whether my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment have really considered the implications of it? I always thought, and I still think, that our system of local government is one of outstanding merit and one of which we all ought to be proud. This Amendment
strikes at the root of local self-government. It says that the county councils and the great borough councils are not to be trusted even to provide footpaths or grass margins. If I put it to the House in that way, surely the extreme foolishness of the Amendment will be apparent. If the county council of Yorkshire, or the great corporation of Liverpool, are not to be trusted with the provision of footpaths or grass margins, then you had better do away with local government altogether and concentrate everything in Whitehall. Who is going to pay for these grass margins and these footpaths? If the Minister tells the corporation of Liverpool, "You are to provide grass margins"—[Interruption.]

Mr. HALL-CAINE: There are no places for grass paths in Liverpool.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have seen excellent narrow paths on the sides of some of the roads. The hon. Member knows very little about the town he represents. If the Minister goes down to the Corporation of Liverpool and tells them: "You shall put down grass margins and footpaths," obviously he cannot insist upon their finding the money. The Road Fund will have to find it. The whole system of road grants goes by the board. The Minister at once starts 100 per cent. grants for things that ought to carry 50 per cent. grants. Who is going to keep them up? The Minister or the local authority? I appeal to the Minister not to accept this Amendment. You must leave to local self-government the decision on these matters.

Mr. MARCH: It was very interesting and encouraging to listen to the right hon. and gallant Member who has been speaking about local government. We were running our local authority as we thought we had a right to run it, and his party and he himself compelled us to alter. They told us that we had not to do it; we had to take our instructions from Whitehall. "If you do not take them from Whitehall, we will put you where we know where to find you," they said—and they did! Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is coming round and saying that local government is the right thing. "Leave it to them, and they
will do what is right." Some of them do and some of them do not. We are after those who do not, as far as possible.
I want to call the attention of the Minster of Transport to various roads in Essex. They have made a big arterial road from Wanstead to Southend and put no footpaths. Where the road runs through Barking, the Barking council, because it has a Labour majority, has put footpaths and has done it very respectably. When you come to the next council area, Romford, that council has done nothing. That is a Conservative council. You can go all over the Rom-ford council area and find no footpaths. There is where I think the Minister might be very useful. He might tell the Rom-ford council to do their duty and carry out their local government, and, if they do not do it, he could do it himself. When that road was being properly made, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was in charge at the Ministry of Transport could have sent some of his officers down there, and they could have used sand that was carted away by the contractors to make good paths on the side of the road. On the Rainham road that was made through to Tilbury it is awful to see the children and the women having to walk on gravel. If they get off the gravel and walk on the road, they do so to the impediment of the motor traffic, and they are scared over and over again. The roads are so much smoother than the side of the road. We say the Minister should use his influence to see that the kerbside is made decent and respectable to walk on, the same as he does for the roads for the motorists to drive over.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am sure that every Member of the House, irrespective of party, is anxious for the provision of footpaths where footpaths ought to be provided. I am not going to say that in every single road in the country a footpath is absolutely essential. It is too sweeping to say that. In all new road schemes the Ministry stipulate, unless it can be conclusively shown to be unnecessary, that footpaths should be provided, and we insist upon it as far as we can. I know that the motorist is very fond of footpaths, because he wants the pedestrians to keep on the
footpath in order that he can do as he likes on the road. When I am driving I am in sympathy with him, and when I am not driving, I am not. The motorist behind this Amendment is not so altruistic as we might think he is. He wants pedestrians out of the way. We must have a sense of right and reason about the matter. There is a number of old roads which have now become important roads, where it would be an exceedingly costly matter to provide footpaths. In relation to the cost and the number of passengers going along the roads, the expenditure might not be justified. The House may take it that the policy of the Ministry of Transport—and I believe it was so before I went there—is to use its influence to the fullest legitimate extent to encourage the local authorities to provide footpaths.
My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. It is all very well for him to say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is illogical because in the last Government he was not a party to local authorities doing these things and now is standing for local self-government. My hon. Friend in the last Parliament was nearly breaking his neck in defence of the rights of local self-government, and particularly in regard to the rights of the borough of Poplar to do exactly what it liked irrespective of Whitehall. He has on some occasion insisted upon having a very big voice in local policy, even though his authority was not paying all the cost of the service involved. My hon. Friend cannot be the champion of local self-government and, in this particular, join the bureaucrats and want to confer upon me absolutely dictatorial and Mussolini powers. Nothing is further from my desire. Suppose the Minister has these powers and goes to a local authority which says, "We do not think that a footpath is necessary." He says, "You do not know what you are talking about. It is necessary, and you will have to provide it" But suppose that next week he goes again to the local authority and urges them to construct a trunk road in relief of unemployment, it will be very difficult to get them to agree after they have been ordered about in regard to footpaths.
This is an Amendment which might appeal to a 17th century Tory, but it cannot appeal to a modern Labour Mem-
ber of Parliament. We ought to be careful in conferring these dictatorial powers upon Ministers and interfering with local authorities. Let hon. Members try it on a Labour County Council. Therefore, I suggest that while the House may be sure that I will use all the influence that I reasonably can use to further the perfectly legitimate desire of hon. Members, I do not think that we ought to go to the extent indicated in the Amendment. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see his way, after a discussion which has ventilated the point, not to press the Amendment.

Mr. COLMAN: I rise to support the Amendment. I regard, as do a number of other people, Clause 57 as being of rather more than ordinary importance, because it affects the interest of practically every user of the highway. The Minister—and I always have a great admiration for his ability—has on this occasion formed an entirely wrong impression. I do not wish to misquote him, but I believe that he gave the impression to the House that we were desirous that paths at the side of the road and grass margins should be provided in every case. We never asked for that, but only that they should be provided in cases where it was desirable and suitable. We are only seeking to-night to strengthen the hands of the Minister in order that, should the necessity arise, he may bring a reasonable amount of pressure upon a backward local authority. I understand that this particular Clause found its way into the Bill during its passage through another place. The Clause was strengthened and added to considerably during the Committee stage in the House of Commons. I am afraid that many of us regret that while this Clause was admittedly greatly improved on the Committee stage, it still falls very far short of what we regard as being the essential factors of a Clause of this kind. It was apparent during the Committee that there was a large body of opinion in favour of the provision of powers to make grass or other margins on the roads wherever it was thought necessary. It is a fair criticism of the Clause to say that it is very much in the nature of a pious resolution. It leaves a local authority free to neglect, if it chooses, to carry out a very obvious duty, and they are not compelled to give any
reasons for their neglect. Therefore I am bound to press this Amendment.
I am speaking to-night on behalf of the National Horse Association of Great Britain which represents practically the whole of the horse breeding societies of this country. This Association strongly supported the Amendment put forward in regard to this matter in the Committee stage and they would welcome the Minister being brought in in this case in order to be sure that local authorities will really give effect to these important provisions. I have had the pleasure on a number of occasions of making representations to the Minister of Transport on behalf of the horse owners of this country. He has always been sympathetic, but I am afraid he has come to look upon me as one who always pleads the case of the horse owner. I am not pleading to-night on those grounds only. I have something in common with the Minister of Transport. We are both motorists. I have been a lifelong motorist, and happen to be one of the first hundred members of the Automobile Association. I cannot conceive any proposal in which motorists would have a more legitimate interest than this particular proposal. It is perfectly obvious that it is most desirable in the interests of motorists that horses and livestock and pedestrians should, wherever possible, be got off the roadway when they are meeting on-coming motor traffic.
There is another section of the community, numbering some hundreds of thousands, which has a special interest in this matter. I refer to those who are always anxious to see the amenities of the countryside preserved, and I submit that they will also be very glad if the Minister of Transport accepts this Amendment. Let me say one word on the question of finance. The point has been made that there are difficulties in the way. In the past we have heard a great deal about the Road Fund being used for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended. I cannot conceive the Road Fund ever being used for a better purpose than this. It was intended for the construction of roads, and a road to be valuable in these days must meet the requirements not only of motorists but of everyone who uses the King's highway. That is Why we are anxious to see not only the interests of motorists
safeguarded but also the interests of livestock breeders, of farmers and pedestrians.
It is half the battle, perhaps even more than half, when you have the Minister on your side. I am bitterly disappointed with the attitude of the Minister this evening. Not long ago he made an important speech in public upon this very subject, and the sentiments he expressed led me, as they would lead any reasonable being, to the conclusion that he would not only accept this Amendment but would be willing to support it. Speaking in the Guildhall on 17th June last, as reported in the "Times"—and I am quite sure he will agree that he was correctly reported—he said:
There were still hundreds of miles of important through routes where there was no footpath or verge for the pedestrian or horseman. This was work of high local value. It might well be also that county councils, who under the new Local Government Act, were assuming responsibility for a great mileage of what were formerly district roads, would wish to launch a general programme of improvement of many of these lesser highways.
I quite agree that he referred to the work being of local value, but I want to make it abundantly clear that all we are asking for is that the Minister shall take unto himself power to see that the local authorities carry out their obligations in this connection. I am glad to think that he has expressed those sentiments, and if opportunity offers to-night I propose, since he gave us that excellent lead, to go into the Lobby in support of the sentiments that he expressed.

Mr. McSHANE: The last speaker proclaimed himself to be a motorist, and therefore he has put in their proper order horses, livestock and pedestrians. The question is not whether one is entirely in favour of local government or in favour of being managed from Whitehall. Neither of those questions has any real relation to the Clause. I support the Amendment mainly because of the pedestrians. This Bill is based upon the report of a Royal Commission, all of whom were motor users. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The great majority of them were motor users, and this Bill is the expression of their minds. The Clause as it stands certainly does not give to the pedestrian the safety that he or she
ought to have on the roads. Already the speed limit on the road where there is no footpath has been abolished. I can easily imagine parties of working-class people going out by motor coach to the country. They get out of the motor coach and discover that the road to which they have come has no footpath. They are then given the choice of being imprisoned for trespassing on the farmer's land or of allowing themselves to be run down by some of the altruistic motor owners to which reference has been made.
There are local authorities in this country who do not make the provision for pedestrians that they could reasonably be expected to make. We all know instances of that. Now that the speed limit has been abolished I suggest that there should be something inserted in the Clause whereby, if a road has become dangerous, representation might be made to the Minister so that he could put pressure on the local authority to do its duty.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: There is no need for a legislative provision to do that. It is perfectly competent for any citizen who considers that a footpath should be provided to write to me or to a Member of Parliament at any time, and if I am convinced that I am right, I can bring pressure to bear on the local authorities. That is an entirely different proposition from the almost unprecedented device of giving the Minister autocratic powers to make a local authority do something which, in its own judgment, is not necessary.

Mr. McSHANE: I am not arguing that the Minister should have absolutely autocratic powers in this respect. What I was about to say when I was interrupted was that the Clause as it stands does not satisfy me and the Amendment does not satisfy me. The point which I want to make it that the Minister ought to put something into the Bill which could be looked upon as a definite lever with which to move the Minister, if it should ever become necessary to do so. The right hon. Gentleman himself, however sympathetic he may be, will not always be there—absit omen—and I want the people, the pedestrians, to feel that in this Bill there is something by means of which they can bring pressure to bear on the Minister in regard to these matters in the future. I plead with the
Minister that he should at any rate look into this question. It would be a simple matter to insert some provision of the kind which I suggest. It is absurd to suggest that the Minister is going to envisage the whole of the roads of this country and insist on this and that being done here and there, but I claim that we have the right to expect from our own Minister of Transport some provision for the pedestrian, now that the speed limit has been abolished.

Major GLYN: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. If I may be allowed to mention the fact, when this proposal was put forward in Committee the Minister met us very fairly indeed. We have had communications with local authorities who felt that this question was one of local government. I do not think it wise to press the matter any further, because the local people must know the conditions in their own districts best. There is also this point. The Minister gave us his assurance that he would use his efforts with the Postmaster-General to see that grass verges along the roads were not ruined by the erection of telegraph poles and stays, preventing the verges being used for horse riding. I hope that that can be done and also that we can see to it that the footpaths are not kept in the condition described by an hon. Member opposite, strewn with gravel, so that nobody walks on them at all. The surface of the footpath should be made as good as the surface of the road, and then the woman wheeling the perambulator will go off the road on to the footpath instead of going off the footpath on to the road. I think there is already ample power in the hands of the Minister to bring pressure to bear on the local authorities, and I am afraid if we try to press for power on the part of the Minister to say to the local authority that it is their duty to provide footpaths wherever he thinks it necessary, and if Whitehall tries to bring a crushing pressure to bear, it will only have a bad effect. We should probably not get the footpaths so easily in those circumstances as we shall get them if we leave the Clause as it stands.

Commander SOUTHBY: It seems to me that everybody who has spoken against this Amendment has really been in favour of the spirit of the Amendment but has lacked the courage to take the
necessary steps to put it into operation. My right hon. Friend who spoke against the Amendment from this side seemed to presuppose that the Minister must be either a fool or a knave.

Mr. E. BROWN: Or a Prussian.

Commander SOUTHBY: As I read the Clause and the Amendment it will simply provide that these steps should be taken, "if necessary or desirable," and I understand that the whole idea of the Amendment is to make certain that the inhabitants of a district, if their local authority does not provide the footpaths which they consider necessary, shall have some appeal to the Minister and then the Minister, if he considers it desirable or necessary to do so, will be able to enforce his will on the local authority and make them provide what the local inhabitants require. It does not mean that the Minister is to go round to places where there is absolutely no necessity for footpaths and say to the local authority, "You are to make footpaths here although I do not think it desirable or necessary." We must leave the Minister some discretion as a man of common sense. I cannot see why we should be afraid to put into the hands of the Minister a power which one must suppose any reasonable Minister will use with proper discretion and in the interests of the people of the country. Anybody who drives round the country must agree that the state of affairs is very bad. Motor traffic has come to stay; it is going to increase, and if we are to have motor roads, which are sure to become still more congested, it is only sensible and reasonable to make provisions for pedestrians, and for horses and other livestock. To shy at the idea of giving the Minister power to make the local authority do what is required by the people who appoint them, seems to me to lack courage.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: The most convincing argument made for this Amendment has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), who pointed out that certain local authorities build new roads without grass verges. Yet the Minister insists on asking us to leave the matter with the local authorities. The Minister must often have had the experience on the road of seeing people having to climb up the
side of the road against the hedge in order to get out of the way of two cars going down a narrow lane. There should be a footpath of some sort for the people to walk on. Why should these cars have the monopoly of the road? I do not altogether agree with the Minister when he says that he does not think that there should be a footpath on every road. I go so far as to say that there should be a footpath—

Mr. SPEAKER: The debate on this Amendment is rather developing into an argument for and against footpaths, but the only question is whether the Minister shall have power to override the local authority.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I bow to your Ruling. If the Minister has the right to call upon the local authorities, it will compel them to provide footpaths where necessary. The right hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Ashley) spoke about Liverpool, Glasgow and other centres, but all that is beside the point. I do not see what Liverpool or other large cities have got to do with it. This is a matter that concerns the country roads, particularly the country roads or secondary roads, and also the new roads, and the right hon. Gentleman was beside the point and wasting the time of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is with considerable regret that I feel that I have to support the Government, but in this case it is necessary to do so. I am strongly opposed to granting these powers, for we ought not to have interference with the work of the county

councils. Those councils are busy looking after their own roads, and when new roads are made the Minister of Transport can make additional grants for footpaths. The county councils know when it is necessary to put footpaths and grass verges, and they ought to be allowed to run their own show.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: May I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this Amendment? We are only half-way through the Bill, and we have a general agreement to do our best to try to get through it to-night.

Major LLEWELLYN: Those who seek to say that the Clause as it stands is merely a pious hope should consider what it will be if the Amendment be carried. The Minister can order them to do something, but what remedy has he against them if they refuse to do it? If they are going to do it at all, they will do it without his intervention; but he has no means of compelling them, and he or any other Minister in his position would merely look stupid if he gave an order which would not be obeyed. The only possible remedy would be for them to be proceeded against for a breach of the law, and I do not think we have gone so far in the case of local governing bodies. We should not make the Clause any stronger by passing the Amendment, because it would be useless for the Minister to try to compel people when he has no remedy if they refuse to do what he asks.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 258.

Division No. 430.]
AYES.
[10.43 p.m.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haycock, A. W.
Richards, R.


Buchanan, G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cove, William G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacLaren, Andrew
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McShane, John James
Wells, Sydney R.


Elmley, Viscount
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxtor, James
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Middleton, G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Glassey, A. E.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Llewellyn-Jones and Lieut.-




Colonel Moore.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Arnott, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alpass, J. H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ammon, Charles George
Atholl, Duchess of


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, Wilfrid


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perry, S. F.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Barr, James
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Batey, Joseph
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Potts, John S.


Bellamy, Albert
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Price, M. P.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Herriotts, J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rathbone, Eleanor


Benson, G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Raynes, W. R.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brichall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hoffman, P. C.
Ritson, J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hopkin, Daniel
Romeril, H. G.


Bowen, J. W.
Horrabin, J. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Rowson, Guy


Broad, Francis Alfred
Isaacs, George
Salmon, Major I.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brothers, M.
Johnston, Thomas
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sanders, W. S.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sandham, E.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Savery, S. S.


Cameron, A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Thomas
Scurr, John


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sexton, James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kinley, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shield, George William


Chater, Daniel
Lang, Gordon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Church, Major A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shillaker, J. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Lathan, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Simmons, C. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Tom (Poirtefract)


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sorensen, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindley, Fred W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Strauss, G. R.


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Sullivan, J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Dickson, T.
Longden, F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Taylor. W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Duncan, Charles
Lymington, Viscount
Thomson, Sir F.


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Toole, Joseph


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
McKinlay, A.
Townend, A. E.


Fielden, E. B.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Vaughan, D. J.


Foot, Isaac
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mansfield, W.
Viant, S. P.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
March, S.
Walkden, A. G.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Marcus, M.
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marley, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marshall, Fred
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Melville, Sir James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wellock, Wilfred


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gossling, A. G.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
West, P. R.


Gould, F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morley, Ralph
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gray, Milner
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Moses, J. J. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Naylor, T. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, E. F.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
O'Connor, T. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hammersley, S. S.
Oldfield, J. R.



Hanbury, C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harbord, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.

CLAUSE 59.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made: In page 50, line 37, leave out from the word "shall," to the word "a," in line 38, and insert instead thereof the words "apply to."

In line 38, leave out from the word "council," to the word "to," in line 39, and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. Johnston.]

In page 51, line 2, leave out from the word "shall," to the word "a," in line 3, and insert instead thereof the words "apply to."

In line 3, leave out the words "were omitted."

In line 24, at the end, insert the words:
(e) Section fifty-three of this Act shall have effect as if for any reference to the council of a county borough or urban district there were substituted a reference to the town council of a burgh charged with the maintenance and management of any of the highways therein, and as if paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) were omitted therefrom, and on any transfer under the said section of a road or bridge to a county or or town council the road or bridge shall become vested in and maintainable by such council as a highway, and the provisions of all general enactments relating to highways shall become applicable accordingly;
(f) The Highways (Scotland) Act, 1771, is hereby repealed."—[Mr. William Adamson.]

CLAUSE 60.—(Application of Part IV and classification of public service vehicles.)

Amendments made: In page 51, line 28, leave out Sub-section (1).

In page 52, line 13, after the word "journeys," insert the words "from one or more points specified in advance."

In line 14, leave out the words "specified beforehand," and insert instead thereof the words "so specified."

In line 29, leave out the words "in pursuance of an offer made to the public."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 52, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a vehicle used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party shall not be deemed to be a vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares by reason only that the members of the party have made separate payments which cover their conveyance by that vehicle on that occasion.
I should explain that Sub-section (3) aims at preventing the improper use of contract carriages. It is not designed to prevent their use for private parties, but to deal with the case of bogus clubs where it is open to anyone for the trifling sum of 1s. to secure membership of such a club, carrying with it the privilege of taking tickets by a motor coach.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Traffic Commissioners.)

Amendments made: In page 53, line 34, leave out the words "this Part of."

In page 54, line 5, leave out the word "any" and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. REMER: I beg to move in page 54, line 8, after the word "undertaking," to insert the words:
or is a member of a local authority controlling any transport undertaking.
It seems fair that if any one of the commissioners who is to be appointed under this Bill has to declare whether he has any financial interest in any transport undertakings that he should also declare whether he is a member of a local authority controlling any transport undertakings. For these reasons it is of the greatest national importance that nobody should be in charge of these very important services which we are creating under this Bill who has a personal interest in the undertakings. For these reasons I think when these appointments are made the full facts ought to be placed before the Minister.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This Amendment was rejected by 20 votes to seven in the Committee upstairs. The Clause as it stands requires any traffic commissioner whom it is proposed to be appointed to make a declaration if he has a personal interest in any traffic undertaking. It does not follow and there is no compulsory direction for the Minister of Transport that he cannot appoint such a person, but the person is required to declare his personal interest in any transport undertaking. That is desirable for obvious reasons, and it is a common condition in appointments made by local authorities. I cannot
agree that a person who happens to be a member of a local authority controlling any transport undertaking should be placed in the same category, because, as a rule, he has no personal interest in the financial success or otherwise of the local authorities' undertakings and his income is not increased or decreased. Therefore I cannot put such a person in the same category as a person who has a personal and private interest in an undertaking. It must be remembered that if the doctrine be that a councillor representing a local authority which controls a transport undertaking cannot be appointed, that would disqualify the great bulk of those who are members of borough councils, most of whom possess transport undertakings. Having regard to these circumstances, and the decisive way in which the Amendment was rejected in Committee, and also having regard to the hour, I hope that the Amendment may not be pressed.

11.0 p.m.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the speech of the Minister shows that his indications, earlier in the discussion of the Bill, that he wished to see private enterprise and municipal enterprise on an equality, are untrue. He says, quite truly, that we must try to prevent any of these commissioners being in any way biased in the exercise of their duty, and, in order to carry that out, he says, very properly, that any individual who is going to be appointed as a commissioner shall have to disclose whether he himself has any personal interest in any transport undertaking, so that, if his appointment would not be a proper one, he may not be appointed. In rejecting this Amendment, however, the Minister suggests that the curtailment of partiality on the part of a person representing a municipality should be done away with, and that anybody representing a municipal undertaking owning omnibuses should be allowed to be appointed. As he says, most of these municipal undertakings do run omnibuses, and, therefore, we have the in my opinion, unfair position that anybody who has any private enterprise interest is ruled out, whereas an individual who represents a municipality, and who wishes, very naturally, to do the best he can for his municipality, is allowed to be there and to be as partial as he likes. That being
so, I think we ought to have some more convincing answer in regard to this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 54, line 11, after the word "counties" to insert the words:
and urban districts, other than boroughs.
The object of this Amendment is to change the panels from which the Minister appoints the first two of the commissioners. The Bill lays down that there are to be two such panels, the first composed of persons nominated by the county councils whose areas are concerned, and the second nominated by the councils of county boroughs or urban districts. The second panel, therefore, would consist of persons nominated, firstly, by the county boroughs, secondly, by the non-county boroughs, and, thirdly, by the urban districts—a very big appointing body, as the House will realise. The Royal Commission on Transport, on page 31 of their report, advised a different division of these county bodies, and suggested that one panel should consist of nominees of county councils, and that the second should be nominated by county boroughs and non-county boroughs. That, I submit, is a better division. I have not followed it in my Amendment, for my Amendment proposes that the first panel should be nominated by the county councils and the urban district councils, and the second by the county boroughs and non-county boroughs. All the boroughs, whether county or non-county, possess the same sort of interest, and I suggest that the urban authorities are better left with the rural district councils and merged with the county councils.
You have only two nominating bodies from whom the commissioners are chosen, and you have to divide the local authorities among these two bodies in some way or other. I suggest that the Government have chosen the wrong way, and the best way is for the first panel to consist of the county councils and urban district councils, and the second to be nominated by the two classes of boroughs, county and non-county boroughs. I believe the Amendment would be satisfactory to the local authorities concerned and it would not do any harm to the Bill, in fact it would be a great improvement.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have carefully considered this Amendment before Committee and again between Committee and Report, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. I am bound to admit that the number of local authorities that will nominate to the town panel, which will only have one representative, will be very large, and the number of local authorities that nominate to the county panel, which will also have one representative, will be very small. Because the number of county councils in a given traffic area will be relatively small, the number of boroughs and urban districts will be relatively large. But this is not a question of counting noses by numbers of local authorities. It is a question of getting a proper balance on the Traffic Commission as a whole. The chairman will be appointed by the Minister and of the other two, one will be drawn from an urban area and the other from a county or rural area. There can be no question that different questions of policy are raised in rural and in urban areas and it must certainly be the case that one of the persons to be appointed should represent the towns and it is equally important that the other should be particularly cognisant of the problems of rural transport. Even if the Amendment were carried, any Minister would be bound to take that view, and it might merely result in the urban districts, which would be classed with the counties under the Amendment, being ignored altogether. We must get town experience and county experience. That is the basis on which I have gone, and I hope that point of view will commend itself to the House.

Mr. P. OLIVER: I am sorry the Minister has taken this view because there is behind the Amendment a very considerable demand, at any rate, on the part of county boroughs, and it is backed by representatives of the three political parties. I am quite prepared to admit that in a matter like this we cannot simply count noses. We must count the population. We must count the number of motor cars. Let us see what the present position is with the present panel as proposed in this Clause. Take the North Western area. There are 20 county boroughs, 40 non-county boroughs and 140 urban districts.
That is, 180 nominating bodies with a vast population behind them, to form one panel. There are only nine counties on the other panel. Let us look at the nine counties. I speak with all respect, as hon. Members from Wales are seated rather thickly around me. There are Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire, Anglesey, Denbigh and Flint. That is only six—all very delightful counties. Politically they are a paradise. The Bill is not concerned with politics, but with population, and therefore with the number of motorists. Those counties have not got a population between them equal to the county boroughs. It seems to me that the panels are altogether wrongly calculated. The Minister said we had to consider town and country. I want to recall to him something that he said earlier in the debate under Clause 46. We were discussing the power to restrict the use of vehicles to specified roads, and he said that some of the small urban district councils had not got a town mentality. He went on to say that the county boroughs had the town mentality. That is our point. If the county boroughs have the town mentality for Clause 46, they have it for Clause 64.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 54, line 35, leave out the words "a term".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in page 55, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
At least one of the three commissioners appointed for the north-western traffic area and of the three commissioners appointed for the South Wales traffic area, specified respectively in the first column of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, and an adequate number of the officers and servants of the commissioners for the said two areas, shall have a competent knowledge of the Welsh language.
It is not often that Wales has occupied the attention of the House in recent Sessions, although we hear a good deal about Scottish matters. I make no apology for asking the House to agree to the Amendment. It is possible to appeal to the House on sentimental grounds, for, of course, no one can ignore the sentiment of nationality. Fully 50 years ago, the House in its wisdom ignored the sentiment of nationality in a neighbouring isle, and we know with what tragic
results. It was very frequently said, with regard to the country to which I referred, that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. So far as my country is concerned, the interpretation of that phrase was a very different one.
When Britain was in difficulties a few years ago, it was an opportunity for Wales, with all its patriotism, to show its loyalty to the United Kingdom, of which it forms a part. I am not going to deal with this question on sentimental grounds. I do not think that the House of Commons is disposed to listen to sentiment, but I believe that it is prepared to do justice, and is anxious that the legislation which passes the House should be in a form to secure efficiency in the administration of the law. In approaching the Amendment from this angle, I wish to point out what will be the functions of the Commissioners. It is not necessary for me to deal with the duties which are common to all the Commissioners, but they are mainly concerned with the granting of road service licences, public service vehicle licences, and licences for drivers and conductors of motor vehicles. It is provided in Clause 63 that,
The commissioners shall, for the purpose of hearing and determining applications for the grant and backing of road service licences,"—
the most important functions they have to exercise—
and may for any other purpose, if they so think fit, hold public sittings at such places in any part of their area as appears to them convenient.
Both in the North Western Area, of which the North Wales counties form part, and also in several of the counties in South Wales there are areas where you will find that a large number of the population either speak Welsh solely or that their knowledge of English is so limited that they would not be able to do justice to themselves if they were called upon to appear before Commissioners who were not able to understand the language of the people. I speak in this connection with a good deal of experience. I have frequently had occasion to attend courts in various parts of North Wales, and I am certain that unless the tribunal is constituted of men who have a good knowledge of the Welsh language it will be impossible for justice to be done to the litigants who appear before the court. This question has been recog-
nised to such an extent that for a large number of years no County Court Judge has been appointed to any Circuit in North Wales who has not had a good knowledge of the language of the mass of the people. In moving this Amendment, I am in a position to refer to precedents. I know what influence precedent has upon this House, and, if I can point out that Parliament, in its wisdom has in the past dealt with similar problems on the lines which I now suggest, I am certain that it will make an appeal to members on both sides of the House. As far back as 1887, in the Coal Mines Bill of that year, a provision to this effect was introduced with regard to the appointment of inspectors in Wales:
Provided always that in the appointment of inspectors of mines in Wales and Monmouthshire among the candidates otherwise equally qualified persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred.
I looked up the report on the debates which took place in 1887 and I find that a well-known industrial leader, Mr. W. Abraham, better known as Mabon moved an amendment to the Bill to insert a Clause of this character. It was opposed by Mr. Mathews, who was then Home Secretary, but so great was the demand from both sides of the House that something should be done to meet the case of Wales that the Home Secretary ultimately agreed to the Section to which I have just referred. In the last few days we have been told in reply to a question that 13 out of the 22 mining inspectors in Wales are fully acquainted with the Welsh language. A Clause to the same effect was introduced into the Quarries Act, and in 1901 into the Factories Act. I trust that all sections of the House would agree to meet out this act of justice to the Principality. We have heard a great deal of the claims of national minorities and we shall in a few days be discussing this question in this House. If it is known that this House, in the case of the loyal minority in Wales, is prepared to recognise their claims in this respect it will have an enormous influence. I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to support this Amendment.
I have no hestitation in appealing to the Conservative party because it was the
Conservative party which in 1887 recognised that Wales was entitled to special legislation in this respect. As far as the Liberal party is concerned, with the traditions of Gladstone and Campbell-Bannerman, there is no question as to their attitude. With regard to the Labour party, may I point this out. They are in a minority so far as England is concerned, they have equality in Scotland, but Wales sends 25 out of 36 members to support the Government. What we are asking is but a measure of justice which means that it can be effectively administered because it is recognised that the people of Wales have the right to put their case before people who are cognisant with their own language.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I trust that the Minister of Transport will assure us that he will deal with this matter and thus render efficient service to the Principality in this respect.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I think I can give an assurance to my hon. Friends from Wales on this point, and so, I hope, dispose of the Amendment and make the measure of progress which we desire. Under the Schedule to the Bill, as the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) has said, there will be two traffic areas which will affect Wales, one in South Wales and Monmouthshire, which in substance is Wales all the way through, and the other in North Wales, which, it is agreed, could not carry an independent traffic commission of its own because it is not big enough, and, in any case, from the point of view of transport, is intimately related to the transport services by road from Liverpool, Lancashire, Cheshire and so on. Therefore, both on traffic grounds and on population grounds it is inevitable that North Wales should be linked up with the North-Western counties of England. I understand that my hon. Friends do not dispute that proposition. What they are asking is that among the three Traffic Commissioners for South Wales and the three for North Wales and the North-Western area one shall be Welsh-speaking, or at any rate with a working knowledge of the Welsh language, and that some members of the staff in those two offices shall be Welsh-
speaking or have a working knowledge of the Welsh language.
On the last point, I see no difficulty at all in admininstration in providing that that shall be so. As a matter of fact I personally should regard it as essential that there should be Welsh-speaking members of the staff in order that they may deal with that section of the population which may be able to speak English but finds it difficult to think in the English language. That difficulty should be met. But, of course, it must be remembered that the traffic commission in the main will be dealing not with the mass of the people so much as with licensees and owners of omnibus undertakings, drivers, conductors and so on, who probably will all be able to speak English. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a point of substance in his argument that cannot be ignored.
The House will agree that I must appoint all the chairmen of traffic commissions on the ground of various abilities in business, their judgment, administrative and organising ability and so on. If I were restricted to any one consideration upon the point it would not be a proper thing to impose on me. There are besides the chairman the two traffic commissioners. In South Wales one will be drawn from the counties and the other from the towns. I think it is highly probable and certainly it is a factor which I shall keep sympathetically in mind, that we can draw from North Wales at least one Welshman who speaks the Welsh language or has a working knowledge of the Welsh language. But in the case of South Wales there are a good number who in origin are real Welshmen but may not have the proper knowledge or a working knowledge of the Welsh language, and yet are competent and eminently desirable people, from the point of view of their knowledge of transport, to sit upon the traffic commission. If I were driven to the position that I had to choose between a Welsh-speaking Welshman in South Wales who is not particularly able for the job and a non-Welsh-speaking Welshman who was outstandingly able for the position, I might be in a position of great difficulty. [Interruption.] I have to face the facts.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: What difficulty does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate in regard to this particular qualification of a knowledge of Welsh?

Mr. MORRISON: It is conceivable—I do not put it higher than that—that I might be driven into making a choice of that kind. Is the House going to tell me in such a case "Although one of these men is greatly superior to the other and is Welsh, he does not speak the Welsh language and you cannot, therefore, appoint him. We will drive you into appointing the less able man of the two"? I am sure the House is not going to do that. Other things being equal, I quite agree that a Welsh-speaking Welshman should have preference and I am prepared to say that that will be the spirit of the administration and that I will do the best I can, but there must be equality in other respects. I only want to get that point clear. As regards North Wales, the case is stronger. I have just been touring North Wales and I have been filled with a great admiration for the people and the country. If I had had to come to a decision on the spot, it is possible that my emotions at the moment might have run away with me. I will never—not even after last night's events—quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for singing the praises of the Welsh mountains. I said so before, and I say it again, even after the experiences of yesterday. As I say, the case in regard to North Wales is stronger but there I must be careful because if I promise that the townsman Shall be drawn from Wales and shall be a Welshman I exclude the Lancashire towns and vice versa. But I see a great deal in the points which my hon. Friends have raised. They may be assured that in the course of administration I will do my best to meet it, and I think that, in the course of administration, I can meet it. But I ask the House not to tie me down by Statute, when circumstances may arise in which I ought not to be tied down. My hon. Friends from Wales, whose feelings I genuinely respect and understand, may be assured that as a matter of administration, I will do my very best to meet the real substance of the claim which they have put forward and I think I can succeed in meeting it.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I am sure we all appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has addressed the House on this subject. I am sure, also, that the right hon. Gentleman himself will be the first to appreciate—especially in view of the fact that yesterday's proceedings seem to weigh upon his mind to some extent—the possibility that he may not be the particular Minister of Transport to make this appointment, and from his successor we may not get that sympathy to which the right hon. Gentleman has given expression. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will not be a Welshman."] I am afraid not, and it is a pity, because if he were Welsh, he would probably be a very sucessful Minister. In view of the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed for our purpose, I appeal to him to go just a little further than he has gone to-night. He speaks of the practical difficulties, and he suggests that he might be confronted with the situation of having to appoint either a Welshman with no other qualifications for the post, or else somebody who had the other qualifications, but was not a Welshman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Welsh-speaking."] The differentiation is very small and not very important, because I venture to say, with some knowledge of the country, that, as regards the possibility of finding a Welsh-speaking man to fill the office of Commissioner, Wales would be a very poor country indeed if it could not produce a man possessing all the qualifications for the position and also a knowledge of the Welsh language. I happen to know something of local administration in Wales, and the fact cannot be ignored that a very large number of men and women in Wales think in Welsh and speak in Welsh. Their native language is Welsh, and it is extraordinarily difficult for them to express their real feelings in any other language. It is no good ignoring that fact. There is a large number of people whose only language is Welsh, both in thought and expression, and they are not getting fair play if they have to express their views in a language which is other than their native tongue. All that we are asking is that in these appointments due consideration should be given to that fact. North Wales includes five or six counties where Welsh in definitely their language, and in South Wales some of the counties are inhabited by people whose
only language is Welsh. It is only right, therefore, when we are setting up a system of this sort, that we should include among those who are to be entrusted with the responsibility of putting this Bill into operation, people who are sufficiently acquainted with the language to ensure fair play to the people who will be affected.

Mr. RAMSAY: May I ask the Minister to deal with this problem in the Highland countries of Scotland in the same sympathetic spirit that he has shown in regard to Wales?

Mr. RICHARDS: I endorse the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friends on the other side on behalf of the claims of Wales. The Minister does not recognise the intensity with which Welsh people regard questions of this kind. There is unfortunately growing in Wales, as in other part of the country, the feeling that this kind of sentiment is disregarded to an extent that it ought not to be. North Wales is the most typically Welsh part of Wales, and it would be a calamity if there were not a Commissioner who could deal with these matters from the essentially Welsh point of view. It is a vital matter to a small country like Wales.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 63.—(Procedure of traffic Commissioners.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move in page 55, line 37, to leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words "application shall be reheard by three commissioners."
The Clause, as it stands, provides that where an application is heard by two Commissioners only and there is a difference of opinion between them, the matter shall be determined by the decision of the third Commissioner. During the debate in Committee, objection was taken to this provision on the ground that the third Commissioner, who would in fact determine the matter, would not have heard the evidence or the arguments on the other side. It has therefore been decided to amend the Clause so as to provide that in the case of a difference of opinion between two Commissioners, the
matter shall be re-heard and determined by all the Commissioners.

Colonel ASHLEY: In thanking the Minister for carrying out his pledge made in Committee, may I take the opportunity of asking him how much longer he proposes to go on? We have been doing our best. We had hoped to get the whole Bill this evening, but obviously that is impossible, with 11 pages of Amendments and the Third Reading stage still before us, and therefore I hope we shall not be asked to sit much longer. I suggest to the Minister that he might finish up at Clause 65, because Clause 66 begins an entirely new subject.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no complaint to make of the way in which I have been treated by the House. The House has been very reasonable. I would prefer, however, to go by time rather than by Amendments, if that is agreeable to the Opposition. We might continue for half-an-hour and then adjourn. [Interruption.] I, too, am thinking of the last omnibus. I suggest that we might adjourn at 12 o'clock or a little after, according to where we are.

Mr. REMER: I wish to say a word or two because I happen to have an Amendment on the Order Paper which is redrafted in the form of the Minister's Amendment. The Minister has had some rather hard words to say of me on previous occasions, and I hope that on this occasion he will express his gratitude to me for having put down an Amendment which he had been able to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 56, line 1, leave out the words "propose to be."

In line 2, leave out the words "with respect to routes, stands, or stoppingplaces."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 65.—(Information to be given to Commissioners as to licences issued before commencement of Act.)

Amendments made: In page 56, line 7, after the word "to," insert the words:
produce to the commissioners all registers kept by the local authority relating to the grant or refusal by them before the commencement of this Act of licences to ply for hire, and to.

In line 8, leave out from the word "such," to the word "as" in line 10, and insert instead the words "other information relating to the matters aforesaid."

In line 12, leave out the words from the word "Act" to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 66.—(Public service vehicle licences.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 56, line 25, to leave out the words "an express carriage or as."
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a vehicle licensed as a stage carriage can only be used as an express carriage subject to conditions which may be attached by the Commissioners to the road service licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 56, line 25, after the second word "carriage," insert the words "or subject to any condition attached to his road service licence, as an express carriage.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 56, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) A public service vehicle licence may be refused or, if it has already been granted, may at any time be suspended or revoked by the commissioners by whom it was granted if, having regard to the conduct of the applicant or holder of the licence or to the manner in which the vehicle is being used, it appears to them that he is not a fit person to hold such a licence.
This Amendment provides that the licence can be withdrawn or suspended for bad conduct on the part of the licensee. I think it will be agreed that that power is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 56, line 37, leave out the words "public service."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 67.—(Certificates of fitness of vehicles.)

Amendment made: In page 57, line 37, leave out the word "condition," and insert instead thereof the word "conditions."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 68.—(Certifying officers and public service examiners.)

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 58, line 37, after the word "officers," to insert the words:
being engineers qualified by technical training and practical experience in the construction and maintenance of motor vehicles.
The Clause says:
with respect to the certification of fitness of vehicles, the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, appoint such officers (in this Part of this Act referred to as certifying officers) as he thinks fit, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to the examination of vehicles, the issue of certificates of fitness and otherwise, as the Minister may require.
These are very necessary officers to be appointed. They will have the responsible duty of certifying that these public service vehicles are in a fit state to go on the roads. On their certificate will depend the lives of the passengers. Therefore they ought to be people who know their job, who have been trained in the work and will be able to give an expert examination of the vehicles. Under the Clause, the Minister can appoint such officers as he thinks fit. One does not mistrust the Minister, and one hopes that he will take all these things into consideration. The adoption of the Amendment would ensure that the officers appointed were technical people who knew their job. In Committee a more drastic Amendment was moved, to the effect that the persons appointed should have all sorts of qualifications, diplomas, etc. It was thought that that would tie the Minister's hands too much. The Minister is anxious to do the right thing, and it would do no harm to tie his successor to do the same excellent things I am sure the present Minister intends to do.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It is true that the Amendment moved in Committee was much more definite in terms. Difficulties would arise in administering the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. "Technical training" is a very uncertain term. What is "practical experience"? Has every hon. Member, who has driven a car, had a breakdown, taken a wheel off and put it on again, had practical experience in the running of a motor car? Certainly their experience has
been practical, but there has not been enough of it, and it has not been intensive enough. I do not think the words of the Amendment would work. The interpretation of "practical experience" and "technical training" might exclude from the position of public service vehicle examiner a man who has worked at a motor garage and might be a decent working engineer but not a technician as ordinarily understood. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. I am sure my right hon. Friend is satisfied that I will uphold the proper requirements for these important appointments. In the circumstances I think it is hardly necessary to press the Amendment, the legal significance of the words of which are somewhat vague.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not convinced by the hon. Gentleman, but I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 69.—(Notice to be given to commissioners of failure in, damage to, or alteration of vehicles.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 59, line 34, after the word "or," to insert the word "fixed."
This Amendment is needed to make it clear that the owner of a public service vehicle need not give notice of any new equipment such as a new fire extingisher or a new jack but only of structural alterations to the vehicle and those affecting its fixed equipment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—(Suspension of vehicle licences for defects.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 59, line 40, after the word "a," to insert the words "certifying officer or."
These Amendments are intended to confer on a certifying officer the same powers as are conferred on a public service vehicles examiner. The certifying officer will be the superior officer and it is obviously desirable that he should have the same powers with regard to the suspension of licences as the examiner.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 71.—(Road Service Licences).

Amendments made: In page 60, line 39, leave out the words "authorising the provision of," and insert instead thereof the words "to provide."

In page 61, line 34, after the word "to," insert the words:
the provisions of this section and to

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 62, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) particulars of the type or types of vehicles to be used; and
This requires that any person applying for a new road service licence, in addition to time tables, shall also give particulars of the type of vehicles used or proposed to be used on the service. This is considered to be necessary to the efficient administration of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 62, line 30, after the word "may," insert the words "subject to the provisions of this section."

In line 33, leave out the words "Provided that," and insert instead thereof the words" (7) In any case."

In line 34, leave out the words "of Parliament."

In line 35, after the second word "service," insert the words "nothing in this section shall be taken to authorise."

In line 36, leave out the words "shall not have power."

In line 37, leave out the word "nor," and insert instead thereof the word "or."

In page 63, line 1, after the word "authorised," insert the words "under Part V. of this Act or."

In line 3, leave out the words "of Parliament."

In line 20, after the word "county" insert the word "county."

In line 20, leave out the word "urban district or rural," and insert instead thereof the words "or county."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 72.—(Validity of licences in other areas and backing of licences).

Amendments made: In page 63, line 28, leave out the words "that other
authority," and insert instead thereof the words "the Commissioners by whom the licence is backed."

In line 30, leave out the words "the Commissioners of that other traffic area," and insert instead thereof the word "them."

In line 41, at the end, insert the words:
Subject to the modification that references in the said provisions to the commissioners by whom the licence was granted shall be construed as references to the commissioners by whom the licence was backed.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 73.—(Power to revoke or suspend licences for non-compliance with conditions).

Amendments made: In page 64, line 4, leave out the words "or the backing of a road service licence."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 75.—(Licence holders to supply particulars of arrangements with other persons as to provision of passenger-transport facilities.)

Amendments made: In page 64, line 37, leave out the words "written or verbal, with respect to," and insert instead thereof the words "affecting in any material respect."

In line 38, after the word "provision," insert the words "within the area of the Commissioners."

In line 40, at the end, insert the words "whether within or without the area."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 64, line 40, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
(b) of any financial interest (whether as a partner or shareholder or as a result of any loan, guarantee, or other financial transaction) which any other person providing passenger transport facilities has in the business of the applicant or holder of the licence, and in the case of the applicant or holder who is a company of any right which any such person as aforesaid has to nominate any director of the company;
(c) of any such interest or right as aforesaid which the applicant or holder has in the business of any other person who provides passenger transport facilities within the area of the commissioners.

Major GLYN: This Amendment raises a point which I mentioned during the
Committee stage. I hope the Minister will look into that point and see whether it is necessary to deal with it.

12 m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not quite clear on that point. I thought that there would be no difficulty about this group of Amendments, which are partly drafting and partly to meet paints raised by the companies. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend has any point that he would like me to look into, and will let me know, I shall be perfectly happy to do so between now and the Bill going to another place.

Mr. REMER: Is it not the case that this is the last stage at which anything can be done, and that nothing can be done in another place, where they will only be considering our Amendments to their Bill?

Mr. MORRISON: What I had in mind was that, so far as this House has amended the Bill, when it reaches their Lordships' House it is possible for their Lordships to disagree, and, if necessary, I might even encourage them to disagree in order to meet my hon. and gallant Friend.

Colonel ASHLEY: Might I suggest that, when we have finished Clause 75, we should adjourn?

Mr. MORRISON: I agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 65, line 6, leave out the word "continued," and insert instead thereof the word "continuing."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourn."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), and not Amended on recommittal, to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for increasing the borrowing powers of the
Central Electricity Board, which was presented on the 29th day of May, 1930, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Godstone, in the county of Surrey, and for the amendment of the Sevenoaks and District Electric Lighting Order, 1913, which was presented on the 29th day of May, 1930, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I am sorry that this important matter, affecting a large number of people, both now and for many years to come, should come on at this late hour. I feel bound to call attention to the fact that it is proposed to give to a company a very valuable franchise which I think is not strictly necessary. The company is described as the Sevenoaks and District Electricity Company, Limited, but it is a subsidiary of a very much larger concern which already has a great deal of power and a great deal of territory to exploit, both in and outside London. That company, I need scarcely say, is the County of London Electric Supply Company. Another company is also concerned. The power supply that is to be used in the districts covered by this Order comes to the Sevenoaks and District Electricity Company from the West Kent Electricity Company, which is another satellite of the parent company, the County of London Company. The position is that the power supplied by the Sevenoaks Company is obtained by it from the West Kent Company, which in its turn obtains it from the County of London Electricity Supply Company. All three probably get their pickings out of it, and, by the time the consumer ultimately gets it, the price is necessarily increased. I suggest that it is deplorable that these matters should come up at this late hour, and that a thing of this kind should be given away in this manner. I do not know what recourse I have except to make my protest for this valuable franchise has been disposed of in this way and comes to the House at a moment when so many Members are absent and the interests of the public are so badly looked after. The Order of this little Sevenoaks Dis-
trict Company very largely extends the territory covered. It takes in no fewer than six parishes, and the whole of the district covered by the extension of the powers possessed by this little company spreads from Croydon almost to East Grinstead, a total length of 14 miles, with an average width of five or six miles. That is an important area and, although it misses out Redhill and one or two other places, it brings in many districts whose population is increasing year by year.
I have here a map of the whole district, and it is really significant of what is going on. The part coloured green was the districts already covered by powers given to the company and to other private companies. Those marked yellow, little cases in the desert of green, are where local authorities have powers. They have produced power under extraordinarily successful conditions. They have produced cheaper than the companies and distributed it at a very much lower price, and it is now proposed to hand over these vast districts coloured green step by step—this is only one of the many such orders—and companies which, although they are restricted as far as the price of generation is concerned, are not restricted so far as the price charged to consumers is concerned. These districts are being given away with a freedom that I should not have expected. The population of London is ceasing to live in the crowded centres and is getting out more and more to the hills and more salubrious parts of the home counties, and these districts, which were unconsidered trifles from the electricity point of view, a few years ago, have become of extraordinary importance to the exploiter of a public demand of this character. Before the population gets there the companies are getting well dug in, and when the population goes there wanting electricity, when the grid will be the sole supplier, they will be able to stand between the cheap supply, which the country has co-operated in producing, and the consumer, who will be dependent entirely upon their monopoly. I protest with all my power against the granting of this power to this company. It could have been stopped, and I regret very sincerely that it has not been stopped.
I shall be told there is no alternative. There is an alternative. Parliament has
provided against the exact contingency that has arisen. It has established by Statute Joint Electricity Authorities. Many of them do not function. But in London and the home counties the Joint Electricity Authority has come into existence and is beginning to function to some tune. The Authority is prepared to purchase rights in municipal undertakings, but some of the small authorities are not prepared to hand over their rights to this joint authority, which was expressly established by Parliament for the purpose of reserving for the public benefit these great public services instead of handing them over to companies. The Joint Electricity Authority is there, ready to supply these districts. It has been negotiating as part of a big plan it has drawn up. Now, by the action of the Minister in providing this Order and in the Company having got it, the plan is entirely spoiled. I have made my protest. While public rights are given away in this reckless manner, I shall not cease to bring the matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: As one who resides in the district mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken, I beg to associate myself with his protest. I have, for a very long time, been anxious to get electricity cheap, but I find it impossible to do so. I see no immediate prospect of obtaining it, under the proposals now made. I urge upon the Minister of Transport that, if he is anxious to get legislation through, he would do well to look more fully and deeply into this matter. I regret that my hon. Friend is not going to divide the House upon it. If the Minister were to investigate the case, I am sure he would feel constrained to take the opinion of the authorities concerned, and that he would do something to delay bringing about this bad proposal. I think it very unfortunate, at this late hour, and under these circumstances, that we are apparently going to have a scheme that is, I am sure, against the interests of the people who live in the area concerned.

Mr. EDE: Many weeks ago I gave Private Notice to the Minister of Transport that, if he brought this Order before the House, I should feel compelled, as
a member of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, with my hon. Friend, the Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge), to oppose its confirmation. I have had some negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Romford, and one or two other Members on this side of the House and the Minister on Monday afternoon. I regret that he has adopted now the attitude that he adopted then. I regret expressly the remark that he passed sotto voce to the hon. Member for Romford when he appealed to him to withdraw the order. I do not think that is a proper way to treat Members of the House who are exceedingly anxious to support the Government, when they make a perfectly reasonable request. For a Minister to say that he is not taking his orders from an hon. Member—

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I did intend to refer to the hon. Member for Romford.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: The Minister has hitherto always treated me with great courtesy.

Mr. EDE: I am quite willing to accept the Minister's statement, although the remark was heard distinctly on this side.

Mr. MORRISON: I did not intend the observation in respect of the hon. Member for Romford.

Mr. EDE: In the course of our interview on Monday, the Minister made a statement to us as to the people who controlled the area of Caterham and Warlingham which adjoins the area under consideration. He told us it was controlled by the County of London Electric Supply Co., Ltd., but it is in fact controlled by the Urban Electric Supply Co. Great pressure has been put upon that body by the County of London Company, to acquire their undertaking. They control an area which hon. Members will realise is an exceedingly valuable one from the point of view of electricity. They are not anxious to go into the County of London combine. If this area to the south of them is acquired by the County of London Company, through one of its subsidiary companies, the Sevenoaks Company, they will practically be compelled to go into the combine against the public interests of the area. I am
sure the Minister cannot desire that they should go into it. The circumstances are such that large scale supply of electricity in this district can be better given by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority than by the County of London Company. In view of the circumstances which I have just related, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister not to press this Order upon the House to-night, but to withdraw it and give further consideration to the matter, and to receive the representatives of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority before he reaches a final decision which, in their opinion, and, I venture to say, in the opinion of a large number of people who desire to support the Government in these matters, may not be to the interests of the locality.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The suggestion which the hon. Member has just made is an extraordinary one. Special Orders are applied for by the authorised undertakers. A public inquiry takes place. The supporters appear; the opponents appear. The case is argued. The person who conducts the inquiry acts in a judicial capacity, and the whole circumstances are carried out in a judicial spirit and the matter is settled. After all this has been gone through—.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask why, if the matter is settled in that manner, it is brought before the House of Commons?

Mr. MORRISON: It is brought before the House for confirmation, and the House is free to confirm it or not to confirm it. That is why the matter is brought before the House. My hon. Friend suggests, after a public inquiry has been held and after the Minister has considered the facts of the inquiry, the report of the inquiry and the circumstances of the case, that certain opponents should be received by the Minister to argue whether the decision arrived at after a public inquiry is right or wrong, when they themselves had been at the public inquiry. To ask that one of the parties should be seen by the Minister, after presure has been brought to bear upon him in the House of Commons, is the most extraordinary conception of the
judicial exercise of the powers under these Acts which I have ever had put before me. There is a judicial element in this matter, and, whatever political pressure is brought to bear upon me either by my hon. Friends on this side of the House or by hon. Members on the other side, or Whatever political pressure is organised against me by the Joint Electricity Authority which took part in the inquiry, whatever happens, I shall still exercise my duties in an impartial and judicial spirit and with reasonable fairness to the parties concerned, consistent with the general electrical policy which I am pursuing. But once the Minister allows one of the parties to the inquiry whether a public authority or not—once he allows that authority, after having been at the inquiry—to ask members of the House of Commons to see him privately—

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: That is not correct. We have not been asked to see the Minister privately. We have done that entirely of our own volition.

Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. Member assures me that he was not re-quested—

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I was not requested. The Authority had no idea that hon. Members were going to see the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made his speech.

Mr. MORRISON: Though they had no idea what was happening when hon. Members came to see me privately, I do not think that it is encouraging for me to see hon. Members and then have the result of our interview thrown across the floor of the House of Commons and discussed here. This is a case in which if the House so desires it can postpone the Motion. I have been asked to withdraw it. I am not going to do that.

Mr. EDE: My request was for postponement.

Mr. MORRISON: I have been asked to postpone it for a few days and in view of the lateness of the hour I am prepared to agree to that suggestion. Hon. Members must not, however, jump to the conclusion that the matter is as easy as some hon. Members would lead the
House to believe. The Joint Electricity Authority has not asked for an Order, let alone having been refused an Order. Hon. Members indicate that they hope to do so in co-operation with the local authority. That may be so, but I am faced with an application and a request from consumers for a supply and I have to decide or postpone the application in the hope that something else will happen in the future. In that case the consumers would not get their supply. I cannot exercise my powers from purely political motives and I shall expect to have the support of the House in exercising my powers in the public interest. If it is desired by the House generally that there should be a postponement of this Motion I am disposed to agree, although after the exceptionally full discussion we have had I think the House might have given me this Order. However, if it is preferred to adjourn the debate I am willing, in the circum-
stances of the case and having regard to the lateness of the hour, to do so.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjouxned."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PETROLEUM BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.